Quick Note from Bill Windsor — WANTED POSTER — January 4, 2015


Thanks SO MUCH to Mary Rogan for sending information to media galore about the efforts to lock me away to stop Lawless America…The Movie.

Perhaps our best hope for the movie (and me) is for mainstream media to report this story.

Here are some interesting stats:  The population of Ellis County Texas is 149,610.  According to crime statistics published at www.recordspedia.com, “between 1999 and 2008 there were 35,407 total crimes reported in Ellis County Texas (2,795 of them violent).  Of the 3,541 crimes that happen every year in Ellis County Texas, nearly one-half occur less than one mile from home.  On average, someone is a victim of a crime in Ellis County Texas every 2 hours.  This includes 32 murders, 256 rapes, and almost twenty-five thousand thefts (including 2,282 auto thefts).  Over the preceding 10 years, reported crime in Ellis County Texas had grown by 76%.  During that same interval, violent crime grew by 82%.  On the whole, the crime figures reflect a dramatic growth in crime over the last 10 years in Ellis County Texas.  If the current trend continued, predicted crime numbers could hit almost six thousand for Ellis County Texas in 2009.”

With murderers, rapists, thefts of all types, many drug busts, and multiple violent crimes every month, a check of the Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson’s Facebook Page reveals just one Wanted Poster.  It is for William M. Windsor for the alleged violation of a protective order in Montana for filming a documentary movie and mailing legal mail to Montana.  Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson is a corrupt elected official who has a vendetta against Bill Windsor because Bill Windsor whipped him in court and is working to expose him and others like him.


Contact Bill Windsor at Bill@BillWindsor.com

Bill Windsor is Alive and Well in Dallas, Texas


Bill Windsor is Alive and Well in Dallas, Texas.

Well, I am suspended again by Facebook.  Facebook claims that posting a photo of a woman with the question: “Is this the face of a Joey?” violates their terms for threats.  Give me a break.  This isn’t quite as bad as their permanent removal of the Lawless America Facebook page claiming it promoted nudity etc, but it’s pretty bad.

My lawsuit against Facebook is moving along in California.  I also have subpoenas and various things with Facebook as I attempt to get the IP addresses and identities of as many of my cyberstalkers as possible.

This should be an interesting week on the legal front.  Meanwhile, I am sidelined doing legal work when I would much rather be finishing the movie.  But the cyberstalkers have successfully interfered with the movie so badly that I have to deal with them first.

Mark your calendar: Allie Overstreet will allegedly appear for a deposition on June 2, 2014 in the Kansas City, Missouri area.

Casey Hargrove, Shonda Hargrove, and Clyde Hargrove of the Joeyisalittlekid Ginger Snap family should appear before Allie Overstreet or soon thereafter.  And Sean D. Fleming is expected to appear before Allie Overstreet as well.

I haven’t done a ranking of the lowest of the lowlife, but Ginger Snap is probably the lowest and Sean D. Fleming and Allie Overstreet are just above Ginger Snap on the lowlife pile.  Facebook is right down there with them.

It’s interesting to trace how all of this cyberstalking came about.  This is my opinion based upon what I have pieced together:  First there was that guy at the University of Montana because I was to film Crystal Cox who he hates.  Next came Joeyisalittlekid because I filmed Presley Crowe, filmed Connie Bedwell (a Joey named Yappy who is believed to be Melanie White and seems to be Connie’s biggest detractor with a big blog about her), and I was to film Joey Dauben (who all the original Joeys seem to hate).  Then came WTP FPR trying to misappropriate the Meet Me in DC event in what I saw as an effort to become a player in the family court reform world.  Some of the WTP folks were at least loosely associates with Joeyisalittlekid.  Then came the American Mothers Political Party (“AMPP”), and we have them tied to Joey and Joeyisalittlekid as far back as 2011.  Then you have all of them coming together in Joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com.  Fleming came out of the dirt because he seems to  really dislike some women who were filmed in Michigan and seems to have a burning desire to be something.  Allie Overstreet was playing footsie with a Joey named Jay Roland.  Then Allie Overstreet immediately started lying her a$$ off when we parted ways over what I saw as her obsession with Joeyisalittlekid, and she hopped right into the very middle of the Joeyisalittlekid bed, bringing along people who I don’t believe had any sense because they darned sure couldn’t read.  As I see it, each of these people/groups had an ulterior motive to damage me and Lawless America.  They don’t believe the stuff they write.  Their false words are merely a means to their end.

I have so much evidence against these folks that it is literally overwhelming.  I’m extremely detail-oriented, so my biggest challenge will be whittling down the charges and the evidence to just the cream of the lowlife crop.

I will publish an article in which I post the evidence of falsification of documents in order to defame me.  I have the original of emails, the documents produced by Allie Overstreet, and then completely different documents published by Ginger Snap.

I’m also publishing another cease and desist notice and retraction request.  I’ll do that here.  As long as the defamatory material appears, I will try to publish these every 30 days or so.


Facebook sued by William M. Windsor


William M. Windsor has sued Facebook in San Mateo County California.  Facebook committed fraud and tortious interference by removing the Lawless America Facebook page while falsely claiming it promoted nudity, pornography, and solicitation of sex.


Joeyisalittlekid and 1,000 Joeys sued by William M. Windsor


William M. Windsor has filed suit against Joeyisalittlekid and over 1,000 Joeys.

Here is the Verified Petition: ELLIS-COUNTY-88611-Windsor-v-Joeyisalittlekid-Verified-Petition-2013-12-26

Bill Windsor obtains subpoenas for Facebook, Cyberstalkers, and Other Kooks in Windsor v. Allie Overstreet

2013-08-01-Missouri-Lexington 005-640w

Bill Windsor obtains subpoenas for Facebook, Cyberstalkers, and Other Kooks in Windsor v. Allie Overstreet.


Judge Dennis Rolf granted my motion, and the Clerk of the Court is now issuing subpoenas for me to take depositions and obtain documents from non-parties in William M. Windsor v. Allie Overstreet and 1,000 John Does.  I have been trying to get this for months.  Now I’ve got it.

Now the cyberstalkers have really got something to look forward to.  Facebook, Google, Yahoo, CraigsList, YouTube, MySpace, LinkedIn, and many others will be having subpoenas winging their way to them.  And a whole host of individuals are being subpoenaed.  American Mothers Political Party members, Joeys, would-be killers, and others.

I am beyond excited!

For more information and the latest updates, be sure to always check www.LawlessAmerica.org and www.AllieOverstreet.com.

William M. Windsor
Phone: 770-578-1094
www.LawlessAmerica.org – blog site

Blogging away for Lawless America


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.


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 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.


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).