Bill Windsor is delayed in Missouri dealing with the lawsuit against Allie Overstreet

2013-07-11-Missouri-Higginsville-finger-640w

Bill Windsor is delayed in Missouri dealing with the lawsuit against Allie Overstreet.

I have to be here on Thursday for a hearing on odds and ends.  Allie Overstreet is supposed to answer the interrogatories and produce documents tomorrow, as she was court-ordered to do.

So, I can’t leave for Missoula Montana until Friday.  I plan to arrive in Missoula on Sunday, so filming will begin on August 5, and I will be there until at least the 12th.  I will be filming the pilot for a proposed Lawless America TV series.  This episode will be an expose of cyberstalker Sean Boushie, the University of Montana, and the seemingly incompetent or corrupt law enforcement officials who have allowed this man to run wild on the Internet.

The judge in Topeka Kansas should issue a ruling this week on whether I will be granted an ex parte stalking restraining order against Claudine Dombrowski and the American Mothers Political Party.

I have two stops to make on the way to Montana — one personal and one very special filming of the eyewitness to a murder that was corruptly called a heart attack.  I have to get my driver’s license in South Dakota, and I am applying for a concealed carry permit for the gun that I bought for my protection.

After Missoula, I will be filming the back story for the tragic murder of a little girl in Great Falls.  Then I am back in Utah — Salt Lake City and Hurricane.  THEN I will finally pull off the road and work on little but trying to get funding.  I can’t afford to continue to travel and film unless I find a financier.

William M. Windsor

nobodies@att.net

Phone: 770-578-1094

www.LawlessAmerica.org – blog site

www.LawlessAmerica.com

www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica2

www.facebook.com/billwindsor1

www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica

www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

 

 

 

Bill Windsor is backtracking to Topeka Kansas for Claudine Dombrowski’s Stalking Trial

California-Los-Angeles-Group-lobby-william-2012-09-28-cropped-tight

Bill Windsor is backtracking to Topeka Kansas for Claudine Dombrowski‘s Stalking Trial.

I received a call this morning from the Clerk in the Shawnee County Kansas Courthouse.  She informed me that the judge has set a hearing for Thursday.  While I am very excited about this, I have to backtrack 800 miles and delay the TV show filming of the Sean Boushie Expose in Missoula, Montana.  I will head straight to Montana after Claudine Dombrowski’s trial.

It was a very productive day.  I filmed segments for the movie in Deadwood, Sturgis, Mount Rushmore, and in front of Wall Drug.

I regularly have people stopping me now to say they’ve seen the Jeep before or know someone who has been filmed.  Today it was a family on Main Street in Deadwood who saw the Jeep a week ago in Kansas.

Utah is back in my plans.  The eyewitness to the torture and murder of Ray Boyett wants to go on camera to tell what he saw.  That should be something.  And we have it as a scoop.  I hope it gets us some notice.

I have a lot more to say, but I am on the side of the road, and I have to drive until at least midnight, and all I’ve had to eat today are a few sourdough pretzel bites.

I’ll put some videos online if I can stay awake tonight when I stop.

 

 

Claudine Dombrowski stalking hearing set for July 25, 2013 in Topeka Kansas

Kansas-Wichita-Lawless-America-Movie-2012-10-30 290-cropped-square-200w

Claudine Dombrowski stalking hearing set for July 25, 2013 in Topeka Kansas.

I just received an email advising me of this.  I am two full days away!@$#!@

I am delighted that a judge has set a hearing, but I hope I can get a continuance.  Perhaps he entered an ex parte protective order.  I haven’t received any paperwork.

So, we’ll see what the next hour brings.  I hate postponing the expose filming of Sean Boushie!

 

 

Bill Windsor leaves the Land of Cyberstalker Claudine Dombrowski headed for Box Elder South Dakota via the World’s Largest Ball of Twine

2013-07-19-Kansas-Cawker-City 024-640w

Bill Windsor leaves the Land of Cyberstalker Claudine Dombrowski headed for Box Elder South Dakota via the World’s Largest Ball of Twine.

Claudine Dombrowski threatened me with bodily harm from “an army” if I came to Topeka and filmed her house.  Well, I came, and I filmed all of her alleged houses.  I even told her where I would be and when, but Claudine Dombrowski and her “army” were all no-shows.

I waited around until noon to see if the judge had ruled on my request for a temporary protective order against Claudine Dombrowski, but no word yet.  So I headed for Cawker City and perhaps my favorite sight to see in all of America: The World’s Largest Ball of Twine.

I enjoy quirky sights like this, and I have seen hundreds of the world’s largests, but the Ball of Twine is my favorite.  It’s my favorite because it ranks high on the quirky meter, but also because of the real life story behind it.

Frank Stoeber was just a farmer.  As most farmers do, he would pick up the twine left from hay bales and the like to keep his place tidy and orderly and so he could reuse the twine.  But he got such a big ball going that he decided he wouldn’t reuse it; he would just keep adding to it.  He started in 1953, and he reached 1,600,000 feet in 1961 when he turned the ball over to the town of Cawker City.  The town built a home for the Ball of Twine, and when it outgrew that, they built a bigger pavilion.  They staged an annual Twine-A-Thon, and they encouraged folks to bring sisal twine to be added to the Ball of Twine. By 2003, there was over 7,000,000 feet of twine.

I figure there was over 10,000 feet of twine as I saw it today.

Frank Stoeber had a dream, and it started with one-foot piece of twine.  He stayed focused on his mission to roll the World’s Largest Ball of Twine.  He stayed true to his objective and only allowed sisal twine.  And he inspired the townspeople of little Cawker City to carry the dream forward, and they have.

When I was there filming today, one car after another stopped to see the World’s Largest Ball of Twine.  It is a legitimate tourist attraction, and there seems to be nothing else in Cawker City.

I stopped at Ackerman Feed Store in Beloit Kansas and bought a “roll” of sisal twine so I could put it in the mailbox where folks can leave twine donations to be added at the next Twine-A-Thon.  They didn’t have any little rolls, so I had to spring for 2,500-feet at a cost of $15.  But it was well worth it to me; my twine will become part of an American institution, the World’s Largest Ball of Twine.

Frank Stoeber is a hero to me because he set out on a mission, remained focused, did everything he could, and then enlisted the help of others.  From one foot to over 10,000,000 feet.

Now, if we could just repeat what Frank Stoeber did with people.  If we can reach 10,000,000 people and get them inspired to save America and end government and judicial corruption, we will accomplish our mission.

 

Bill Windsor drafts lawsuit against the American Mothers Political Party and its members, including Claudine Dombrowski, Lorraine Tipton, Jennifer Dotson, Shannon E. Miller, Kimberly Wigglesworth, Connie Bedwell, and Loryn Ryder

2013-07-17-Kansas-Topeka-Shawnee-County-Courthouse (1)-640w

Bill Windsor has drafted a lawsuit against the American Mothers Political Party and its members, including Claudine Dombrowski, Lorraine Tipton, Jennifer Dotson, Shannon E. Miller, Kimberly Wigglesworth, Connie Bedwell, and Loryn Ryder.  The lawsuit is to be filed at the Shawnee County Courthouse in Topeka, Kansas.  Tipton (Wisconsin), Dotson (Florida), Miller (Mississippi), Wigglesworth (Connecticut), Bedwell (California, and Ryder (Ohio) will all have to come to Kansas to participate.

I have carefully studied Kansas statutes, and I have identified the causes of action.  I have a lot of evidence, with screenshots of published statements by each of these woman and entire downloads of the website and Facebook page for the American Mothers Political Party.

This has not yet been filed, but I plan to file it as soon as possible.  Because these women are such supporters of the American Mothers Political Party, which is headquartered here in Topeka Kansas, I believe Tipton, Dotson, Miller, Wigglesworth, Bedwell, and Ryder will all have to come here.  With all the hearings and discovery that will be done, we will all be spending a lot of time in Topeka.

COUNT I – DEFAMATION

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. In Kansas, the elements of defamation, both libel and slander, are: (1) false and defamatory words (2) communicated to a third person (3) which result in harm to the reputation of the person defamed.  An organization may be liable for the defamatory utterances of its agent which are made while acting within the scope of her authority.
  3. Defendants have published false and defamatory words about the Plaintiff. [Element 1.]  Published statements were false.  Many statements are mentioned above and may be seen in exhibits.  The Plaintiff believes much more will surface in discovery.
  4. Statements that Defendants have published were communicated to third persons. [Element 2.]  Many statements have been published online for the world to see.
  5. Statements made by Defendants have harmed the reputation of Plaintiff and have lowered him in the estimation of the community or to defer third persons from associating or dealing with him.  [Element 3.]  Many people have ceased dealing with the Plaintiff because of the statements.
  6. Defendants know the difference between what’s true and what’s a lie.  They know about laws to protect people from libel, slander, defamation, harassment, and stalking, but they acted anyway.  They had a duty to abide by the law, and they didn’t ignore it once; the laws were ignored again and again and again.
  7. The Plaintiff suffered damage as a result of statements by Defendants. The Plaintiff has lost his wife, his relationship with his children, and any contact whatsoever with his grandchildren.  He has lost his home.  His movie project has been severely hurt by what the Defendants have done.  His reputation has been tarnished almost beyond belief.  The Plaintiff has incurred costs and lost money as a result of the actions of the Defendants.

 

COUNT II – DEFAMATION PER SE

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. Statements made by Defendants impute the commission of crimes or acts that constitute an indictable offense.  Many statements made have accused the Plaintiff of criminal acts.
  3. Many statements made by Defendants impute fraud, misconduct, or incompetence in the Plaintiff’s business or occupation.
  4. Statements made by Defendants tend to harm the reputation of Plaintiff and to lower him in the estimation of the community or to defer third persons from associating or dealing with him.  Many people have ceased dealing with the Plaintiff because of the statements.
  5. Statements made by the Defendants were defamatory as a matter of law.

 

COUNT III – OUTRAGE AND INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. The tort of outrage or intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) The conduct of defendant must be intentional or in reckless disregard of plaintiff; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s mental distress; and (4) plaintiff’s mental distress must be extreme and severe.
  3. Defendants intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff.  Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly. [Element 1.]  Defendants know the difference between what’s true and what’s a lie.  They know about laws to protect people from libel, slander, defamation, harassment, and stalking, but they acted anyway.  They had a duty to abide by the law, the they didn’t ignore it once, the laws were ignored again and again and again.
  4. Conduct of Defendants was extreme and outrageous. [Element 2.]  These outrageously false, criminal claims would prompt an average member of the community to exclaim “outrageous!”
  5. The conduct of Defendants caused the distress. [Element 3.]
  6. The distress caused was severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff.  [Element 4.]  The outrageous lies, libel, slander, and defamation are bad alone, but the effect on the Plaintiff’s life with the loss of his wife, his family, his home, and life as he knew it has caused severe emotional distress.

 

COUNT IV – NEGLIGENCE

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. Defendants were negligent.  Negligence is the failure to exercise the degree of care which a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances.
  3. The elements of a negligence claim are (1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains; (2) an act or omission in breach of that duty, (3) An injury to the plaintiff from such failure of the defendant, and (4) an injury.
  4. The Defendants had a duty to abide by the laws regarding defamation, cyberstalking, harassment, libel, slander, and they ignored that duty.  Harm was clearly forseeable.  Duty, the obligation of one person to another, flows from millennia of social customs, philosophy, and religion. Serving as the glue of society, duty is the thread that binds humans to one another in community. Duty constrains and channels behavior in a socially responsible way.  The Defendants did not behave in a socially responsible way.  Their actions were totally irresponsible.
  5. There is a standard of proper behavior necessary to avoid imposing undue risks of harm to other persons and their property, and the Defendants breached their duty.  They ignored the behavior necessary to avoid harming the Plaintiff.  They thumbed their noses at the law and the Plaintiff with one blatant slanderous statement after another.  The Defendants had a duty to act with reasonable care for the safety the Plaintiff.  The Defendants acted carelessly, unreasonably, without due care.  The Defendants breached the duty of care, and their conduct was negligent.
  6. The damages the Plaintiff suffers are a proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of duty.  The Defendants must be required to compensate the Plaintiff for harm improperly inflicted.  How do you compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of his wife, his children, and his grandchildren?  As much as money damages can do so, the law requires the Defendants to restore what the Plaintiff lost as a proximate result of the Defendants’ wrongs.
  7. The Plaintiff has been caused pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, loss of his marriage, loss of his relationship with his family, loss of his home, severe damage to his reputation, damage to his career, and more.

 

COUNT V – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

OR BUSINESS RELATIONS

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. Tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy requires proof of: (1) a contract or valid business relationship; (2) defendant’s knowledge of the contract or relationship; (3) a breach induced or caused by defendant’s intentional interference; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom.
  3. The Plaintiff was involved in a valid business relationship. [Element 1.]  The Defendants knew that the Plaintiff had a valid business relationship with people all over America in filming videos, conducting interviews, and producing a movie.  Several of the Defendants signed a contract with the Plaintiff, and they were aware that everyone filmed by the Plaintiff signed the same contract.
  4. Defendants were aware of the relationship. [Element 2.]  The Defendants were totally aware of the business relationship that the Plaintiff has had with thousands of people.
  5. Defendants intentionally interfered with the relationship. [Element 3.]  Defendants know the difference between what’s true and what’s a lie.  They know about laws to protect people from libel, slander, defamation, harassment, and stalking, but they acted anyway.  They had a duty to abide by the law, the they didn’t ignore it once, the laws were ignored again and again and again.  They took actions to damage the Plaintiff’s business relationships.
  6. Defendants acted without justification. [Element 4.]  There can never be a justification for lies, libel, slander, harassment, defamation, and false criminal charges.
  7. The Plaintiff suffered damages as a direct result of conduct of Defendants. [Element 5.]  Many people have dropped out of the Plaintiff’s projects.  Very few people contact the Plaintiff now while many thousands did before this.  The Plaintiff had over 50,000 followers on Facebook before this, and now he has less than 100.  The Defendants caused this.

 

COUNT VI – FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. The right to privacy is invaded when there is (1) publication of some kind is made to a third party; (2) the publication  falsely represents the person; and (3) that representation is highly offensive to a reasonable person.  This is a cause of action based upon injury to plaintiff’s emotions and his mental suffering.
  3. Defendants have given publicity to matters concerning the Plaintiff.
  4. Defendants have invaded the Plaintiff’s privacy.  The Plaintiff’s name has been misappropriated as has the name of his deceased parents.  The Plaintiff’s photos and intellectual property have been misappropriated many times.
  5. Private facts about the Plaintiff have been publicly disclosed, and totally false personal information has been publicly disclosed.  Facts disclosed include alleged sex life, alleged criminal activity, alleged failure to pay taxes, alleged pedophilia, and much more.  There is an absolutely false article on Business Week’s website posted by Dombrowski that claims the Plaintiff is a sexual deviant.  The Plaintiff’s personal photos, photos of family members, as well as photos and alleged photos of his family have been published to damage the Plaintiff and in violation of his privacy and intellectual property rights. The matters publicized would be offensive to a reasonable person.  The disclosures have humiliated the Plaintiff.
  6. The Plaintiff has been portrayed in an absolutely false light to the public.

 

COUNT VII – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT DEFAMATION

  1. The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.
  2. The elements for civil conspiracy under Kansas law are: (1) Two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result thereof.
  3. Defendants conspired to defame the Plaintiff.
  4. Defendants formed and operated the conspiracy.  The object to be accomplished was to defame, libel, slander, harass, cyberstalk, falsely charge the Plaintiff with felonies, cause emotional distress, and damage the Plaintiff.  Evidence shows that Defendants had a meeting of the minds and actively worked together toward this objective.
  5. Multiple overt acts were committed.  A substantial act or substantial effect from the conspiracy occurred in Kansas.  Defendants knew of the acts to be committed in Kansas and the impact in Kansas of acts done elsewhere in furtherance of the conspiracy.  The act in, and effect on, Kansas was a direct and foreseeable result of the conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  6. Damage resulted to the Plaintiff from acts done in furtherance of the common design.  The Plaintiff has been caused pain and suffering, emotional distress, lost enjoyment of life, loss of his marriage, loss of his relationship with his family, loss of his home, severe damage to his reputation, damage to his career, and more.  The Plaintiff’s business relationships have been severely damaged.  The Plaintiff’s reputation is now sullied by a massive amount of absolutely false, defamatory information online.  This defamation likely can never be erased because it is breeding in cyberspace.

 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

45.          The facts in paragraphs 21-65 are incorporated herein.

46.          The Defendants acted intentionally to damage the Plaintiff.  This isn’t the case of someone slipping up and making one false statement.  The actions of the Defendants were deliberate.  Defendants’ conduct as described above is willful, wanton, wicked, intentional, and malicious resulting from fraud, insult, and malice, and it is associated with aggravating circumstances, including willfulness, wantonness, malice, oppression, outrageous conduct, insult, and fraud, thus warranting the Plaintiff’s recovery of punitive damages from the Defendants, to be determined by the trier of fact.  The Plaintiff should receive an award of punitive damages.  Exemplary damages serve to provide the claimant with recovery above and beyond compensatory damages in order to punish the wrongdoer for egregious conduct and to deter the wrongdoer and others from similar conduct in the future. Since the Plaintiff’s damages can never be erased in this case; there is no amount of money that could compensate the Plaintiff for the loss of the loves of his life, his wife, children, and grandchildren; there is no amount of money to compensate a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen for the destruction of his reputation.

 

JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer, and that on final trial, Plaintiff has the following:

  1. Judgment against Defendants for economic, pecuniary, lost profits, consequential, and incidental damages in an amount greater than $75,000 and the jurisdictional limits of the Court;
  2. By reason of Defendants’ knowing and intentional conduct, mental anguish damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court;
  3. Prejudgment interest as provided by law;
  4. Exemplary and punitive damages appropriate to deter any future willful conduct;
  5. Attorney’s fees;
  6. Costs of suit;
  7. Post-judgment interest as provided by law;
  8. An Order that Defendants remove all false information regarding Plaintiff from the Internet;
  9. An Order that Defendants retract all false statements made by Defendants regarding Plaintiff;
  10. An Order that Defendants cease all false statements regarding Plaintiff; and
  11. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

 

Submitted this 18th day of July, 2013,

_________________________

William M. Windsor

514 America’s Way #4841 * Box Elder, SD 57719-7600

Email: nobodies@att.net, Phone: 770-578-1094, Fax: 770-234-4106

 

Claudine Dombrowski has been located in Topeka, Kansas, and evidence and witnesses are mounting against her for a variety of crimes and wrongdoing

2013-07-17-Kansas-Topeka-Claudine-Dombrowski-Residences (1)-640w

Claudine Dombrowski has been located in Topeka, Kansas, and evidence and witnesses are mounting against Claudine Dombrowski for a variety of crimes and wrongdoing.

I have determined that Claudine Dombrowski works at Gosser’s Auto Electric, 2001 SE 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66604, and I have been advised that Claudine Dombrowski has lived at Park South Apartments, 3711 Park South Court, Topeka, KS 66609.

Gosser’s Auto Electric was one of the “home” addresses I obtained on Claudine Dombrowski through Spokeo.

The phone started ringing bright and early this morning with information about Claudine Dombrowski.

It seems Claudine Dombrowski may be one giant fraud.  It seems Claudine Dombrowski attacks just about anyone who crosses her and her path.  I have been told that Claudine Dombrowski appears to have faked injuries using makeup.  I have been told that her own daughter, who Claudine Dombrowski cries on camera about not being able to hold for 13 years, filed a petition seeking a stalking protective order against her.  The daughter also had her name legally changed to eliminate the Dombrowski.  There are other criminal charges pending against Claudine Dombrowski here in Topeka, and the District Attorney has the file.

I have been advised that Claudine Dombrowski‘s loss of custody and limited visitation was totally proper.  I understand Claudine Dombrowski published photos of her daughter online as well as her psychiatric records.  I am told that Claudine Dombrowski attended one court hearing and handed out photos of the children of one of the attorneys involved.  I am told that I will be receiving emails where Claudine Dombrowski told another attorney that she bought a gun using the attorney’s stolen credit card information.  I am told that this attorney received a death threat as well as a message saying that the attorney’s daughter needed to be raped.  I am told that another local attorney received death threats from Claudine Dombrowskii as well.

These are all things that I was told.  I am scheduling a meeting with the other victims to get their stories and see their evidence.

Here are some of the cases involving Claudine Dombrowski:

Case

Name

  

Role

02TR008111 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1D
04L 006795 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1D
05L 019654 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1D
10TR000190 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1D
96D 000217 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1OE
96D 000217 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 2OR
96D 000217 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,, 1D
03C 000086 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,,TRACT 84, 187D
04L 006034 -DOMBROWSKI,CLAUDINE,M, 1D

Claudine Dombrowski was divorced from Halleck (Hal) Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997.  Attorney Donald R. Hoffman.  Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Jill Dykes.

Birthdate: April 10, 1966, unless she lies about that, too.

Aliases: Claudine Marie Dombrowski, Claudine M Montgomery, Claudine M Richardson, Claudine Montgomery, Claudine Yockers

Relatives: Kathy Richardson, David Montgomery, Hal Richardson, Hal George Richardson, Halleck Richardson, Jennifer Dombrowski, Brian Montgomery, Daniel Montgomery, David Montgomery

Here are some articles with information about Claudine Dombrowski.

http://lawlessamerica.org/?p=49

http://lawlessamerica.org/?p=60

http://lawlessamerica.org/?p=41

http://lawlessamerica.org/?p=38

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1258:bill-windsor-has-been-attacked-by-shannon-e-miller-the-american-mothers-political-party-facebook-and-more&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1259:american-mothers-political-party-launches-boycott-of-lawless-americathe-movie&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1264:american-mothers-political-party-announces-that-there-will-be-no-lawless-america-movie&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1262:american-mothers-political-party-page-should-be-closed-by-facebook-after-charges-of-being-a-hate-site&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1257:bill-windsor-has-been-attacked-by-shannon-e-miller-the-american-mothers-political-party-facebook-and-more&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1274:sundance-film-festival-will-lawless-americathe-movie-be-banned-&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1286:bill-windsor-of-lawless-america-announces-plan-for-combatting-liars-and-cyberstalkers&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1371:elizabeth-hope-hernandez-to-be-charged-with-new-crimes-in-mississippi&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1339:bill-windsor-has-filed-criminal-complaints-against-allie-overstreet-sean-boushie-claudine-dombrowski-elizabeth-hope-hernandez-kimberly-wigglesworth-and-brannon-bridge&catid=133:lawless-america-the-movie&Itemid=105

I am here in Topeka waiting for a judge to act on my Petition for a Stalking Protective Order.  Looks like I will be busy.

Claudine Dombrowski runs around pretending to be an important leader in the fight for battered women.  It appears to me that she is a batterer; she batters with the Internet and with harassment of innocent people, including her own child.

Here are IP addresses that have been used by Claudine Dombrowski:

173.194.64.132 is used for the following:  Shawneecourtwhores.blogspot.com; Angelzfury.blogspot.com; Thetruthaboutthefamilycourt.blogspot.com; Ncmbts.blogspot.com; Drmilfredbuddale.blogspot.com; Mjilldykes.blogspot.com; Renemetherton.blogspot.com; Jasonphoffman.blogspot.com

74.200.243.251 is used for: Angelzfury.wordpress.com

184.106.20.99 is used for: Battermothersjustice.posterous.com

72.233.2.58 is used for: Mamaliberty.wordpress.com

195.170.168.1 is used for: Justiceformothers.blog.com

 

Bill Windsor visited the Shawnee County Courthouse in Topeka Kansas where he filed for a Stalking Protective Order against Claudine Dombrowski

California-Los-Angeles-Group-lobby-william-2012-09-28-cropped-tight-edited-640w

Bill Windsor visited the Shawnee County Courthouse in Topeka Kansas where he filed for a Stalking Protective Order against Claudine Dombrowski.

I filed close to 70-pages with my report.  This will now be presented to a judge, and he will decide whether he will (a) issue an ex parte protective order temporarily, or (b) decide at a trial that will be set up here after Claudine Dombrowski gets served.

Claudine Dombrowski has a reputation at the courthouse, and it isn’t a good one….

Bill Windsor’s Video Report on filing for a Stalking Protective Order against Claudine Dombrowski and the American Mothers Political Party.

 

Bill Windsor reports from the Windsor v. Overstreet Hearing in Lexington Missouri

California-Los-Angeles-Group-lobby-william-2012-09-28-cropped-tight-edited-640w

Bill Windsor reports from the Windsor v. Overstreet Hearing in Lexington Missouri.

Video Report of Bill Windsor from the Lafayette County Courthouse in Lexington Missouri.

 

Blogging away for Lawless America

California-Los-Angeles-Group-lobby-william-2012-09-28-cropped-tight

Hello friends and enemies.

I have set up www.LawlessAmerica.org so I can quickly publish news.

We have serious technical problems with www.LawlessAmerica.com, and I just don’t have the time to hassle with it right now, so this blog makes it easy for me to post.

LEGAL NEWS

The big news today: Bill Windsor whips Allie Overstreet’s lawyer in court as Judge Dennis Rolf denied their attempt to get my lawsuit dismissed.

There were a number of motions discussed, but the big one was Allie Overstreet’s attempt to have my lawsuit dismissed.  That is always the biggest hurdle in a lawsuit, and a massive hurdle for pro se plaintiffs.  In federal courts in Georgia, no pro se plaintiff has ever won, and 75% lose at the motion to dismiss stage.

I have developed an instant intense dislike for Allie Overstreet’s attorney, Matthew J, O’Connor.  He wears these really ugly alligatorish patchwork black shoes.  Picture a slick hair used car hustler, and that’s what I see when I look at him.  He has lied in court pleadings, and he has filed false pleadings.  He lied to the judge today, and I called him on it right there.  I’m going to refer to him as Weasel Curly.  My late former father-in-law used to tell stories about a guy he knew named Weasel Curly.  The guy looks and acts like a Weasel Curly, in my opinion.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the judge says the pleadings sufficiently spell out a case for relief, so my lawsuit is alive and well.  The judge also ordered them to answer interrogatories and produce valid documents within 14 days.  And he ordered Allie Overstreet to appear at a deposition.  I had asked him to strike her pleadings for making a mockery of discovery.  They’re on notice now, so I believe he will be harsh if they continue to avoid their obligations.

On the negative side, he let Mark Supanich out of the case because he said I did not adequately plead in my lawsuit why a Missouri court should have jurisdiction over a guy from Montana.  So, I have to amend my “Verified Petition” and get him served again.

This lawsuit names 1,000 John Doe defendants, and since it is moving forward full speed now, I look forward to bringing more of the liars, libelers, slanderers, defamers, and cyberstalkers into this case.  I am seeking at least $1,000,000 in damages from each defendant and defendant-to-be.

I had big posters of the fake Facebook pages for my deceased mother, my deceased father, and some other garbage, and I suspect those had an impact on the judge.  He sure looked at them.

After the hearing was over, I pulled the Jeep in front of the courthouse to set up the camera to record a story.  Allie Overstreet passed by and shot me the finger.  I scrambled to get the camera set up, but all I got was her walking down the street.

I’ll process film and get it posted later today.

I feel GREAT about the outcome today.  I whipped Allie Overstreet’s attorney, Weasel Curly, in court!  His tactic was to defame me.  I had the facts and the law.  The guy screwed up.  He filed his answer before he filed the motion to dismiss, and that isn’t allowed.  He blew it.  Thank Heavens I blundered across those cases in my limited time to conduct legal research.

I almost forgot. The judge asked me about being nude with women in hot tubs, one of the defamatory statements made by some of the bozos.  It never happened.  He didn’t read down far enough, or I am sure he would have asked about the statement that I have sex with animals. Maybe we can cover that one next time.  No, never happened and never will happen.

FACEBOOK UPDATE

Facebook removed the Lawless America page falsely claiming it contained nudity.

They regularly ban me for 12 hours for such horrible things as posting photos of welcome signs to towns.  They now have me blocked for 7 days and indicate I will probably be banned for life.

I have to get Facebook sued.  I need to find some time to draft a complaint.

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

I will be in Topeka Kansas on July 17, 2013 to file criminal charges against Claudine Dombrowski.  These are the charges.  I have massive evidence against her:

Kansas Statutes > Chapter 21 > Article 40 > § 21-4004 – Criminal defamation

 

(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.

      (b)   In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true.

      (c)   Criminal defamation is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.

 

Kansas Statutes Annotated Section 21-3438: Stalking

 

Stalking is the continuous targeting of one person or that person’s family, causing that person to fear that he or his family will be harmed. The continuous targeting, also called “course of conduct” is defined as at least two incidents. Acts considered staking might include: (1) following the victim or his family, (2) threatening the victim or his family, (3) showing up at the victim’s home, school or workplace, (4) leaving items or “gifts” at the victim’s home, (5) injuring the victim’s pet, (6) damaging the victim’s property or (7) any kind of communication by mail, telephone or electronic transmission.

The statute was updated in 2008 to lower the standard for stalking charges to be filed. Victims used to be required to show that an alleged stalker made or posed a “credible threat.” As of May 2008, a victim is now only required to demonstrate that a stalker’s behavior has put the victim in “reasonable fear of her safety.”

21-3438. Stalking. (a) Stalking is:

      (1)   Intentionally or recklessly engaging in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person in the circumstances of the targeted person to fear for such person’s safety, or the safety of a member of such person’s immediate family and the targeted person is actually placed in such fear;

      (2)   intentionally engaging in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which the individual knows will place the targeted person in fear for such person’s safety or the safety of a member of such person’s immediate family; or

      (3)   after being served with, or otherwise provided notice of, any protective order included in K.S.A. 21-3843, and amendments thereto, that prohibits contact with a targeted person, intentionally or recklessly engaging in at least one act listed in subsection (f)(1) that violates the provisions of the order and would cause a reasonable person to fear for such person’s safety, or the safety of a member of such person’s immediate family and the targeted person is actually placed in such fear.

      (b) (1)   Upon a first conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(1) is a class A person misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(1) is a severity level 7, person felony.

      (2)   Upon a first conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(2) is a class A person misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 5, person felony.

      (3)   Upon a first conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(3) is a severity level 9, person felony. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, stalking as described in subsection (a)(3) is a severity level 5, person felony.

      (c)   For the purposes of this section, a person served with a protective order as defined by K.S.A. 21-3843, and amendments thereto, or a person who engaged in acts which would constitute stalking, after having been advised by a uniformed law enforcement officer, that such person’s actions were in violation of this section, shall be presumed to have acted intentionally as to any like future act targeted at the specific person or persons named in the order or as advised by the officer.

      (d)   In a criminal proceeding under this section, a person claiming an exemption, exception or exclusion has the burden of going forward with evidence of the claim.

      (e)   The present incarceration of a person alleged to be violating this section shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.

      (f)   As used in this section:

      (1)   “Course of conduct” means two or more acts over a period of time, however short, which evidence a continuity of purpose. A course of conduct shall not include constitutionally protected activity nor conduct that was necessary to accomplish a legitimate purpose independent of making contact with the targeted person. A course of conduct shall include, but not be limited to, any of the following acts or a combination thereof:

      (A)   Threatening the safety of the targeted person or a member of such person’s immediate family.

      (B)   Following, approaching or confronting the targeted person or a member of such person’s immediate family.

      (C)   Appearing in close proximity to, or entering the targeted person’s residence, place of employment, school or other place where such person can be found, or the residence, place of employment or school of a member of such person’s immediate family.

      (D)   Causing damage to the targeted person’s residence or property or that of a member of such person’s immediate family.

      (E)   Placing an object on the targeted person’s property or the property of a member of such person’s immediate family, either directly or through a third person.

      (F)   Causing injury to the targeted person’s pet or a pet belonging to a member of such person’s immediate family.

      (G)   Any act of communication.

      (2)   “Communication” means to impart a message by any method of transmission, including, but not limited to: Telephoning, personally delivering, sending or having delivered, any information or material by written or printed note or letter, package, mail, courier service or electronic transmission, including electronic transmissions generated or communicated via a computer.

      (3)   “Computer” means a programmable, electronic device capable of accepting and processing data.

      (4)   “Conviction” includes being convicted of a violation of this section or being convicted of a law of another state which prohibits the acts that this section prohibits.

      (5)   “Immediate family” means father, mother, stepparent, child, stepchild, sibling, spouse or grandparent of the targeted person; any person residing in the household of the targeted person; or any person involved in an intimate relationship with the targeted person.

      (g)   If any provision or application of this section is held invalid for any reason, the invalidity of such provision or application is severable and does not affect other provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications.

 

Kansas Statutes > Chapter 21 > Article 34 > § 21-3419 – Criminal threat

 

(a) A criminal threat is any threat to:

      (1)   Commit violence communicated with intent to terrorize another, or to cause the evacuation, lock down or disruption in regular, ongoing activities of any building, place of assembly or facility of transportation, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or evacuation, lock down or disruption in regular, ongoing activities;

      (2)   adulterate or contaminate any food, raw agricultural commodity, beverage, drug, animal feed, plant or public water supply; or

      (3)   expose any animal in this state to any contagious or infectious disease.

      (b)   A criminal threat is a severity level 9, person felony.

      (c)   As used in this section, “threat” includes any statement that one has committed any action described by subsection (a)(1) or (2).