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).