Monthly Archives: May 2013

Allie Overstreet files Motion to Strike Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint

Virginia-Arlington-Meet-Me-in-DC-2013-02-06 030-Allie-Overstreet-cropped-640w

Allie Overstreet files Motion to Strike Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint.

13LF-CV00641-Defendant-Overstreet-Motion-to-Strike

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS

BY DEFENDANT ALLIE L. OVERSTREET

Comes Now, William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”) and files this RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADNGS BY DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET.  PLAINTIFF shows the Court as follows:

  1. 1.             On May 30, an attorney purportedly acting for DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET (“DEFENDANT”) filed a MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS.
  2. 2.             There is no entry of appearance on file from this attorney, and the PLAINTIFF has not received any such notice of appearance.
  3. 3.             Local Rule 21.2 requires that attorneys file an Entry of Appearance.  No such Entry of Appearance has been served on the PLAINTIFF, and no such Entry of Appearance is shown on the Court Docket.
  4. 4.             Pursuant to Local Rule 21.2, PLAINTIFF asks that this MOTION be denied.  The attorney has no standing in this matter.
  5. 5.             The MOTION makes an unsubstantiated assertion that the PLAINTIFF did not provide a “short plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
  6. 6.             The Statement of Facts in the PLEADINGS is only 26 pages.  The PLEADINGS are verified, so they also serve as a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, signed before a notary.  While “evidence in support of allegations need not be pleaded,” (Banks v. Morris & Co., 302 Mo. 254, 257 S.W. 482, 485 (1924) (en banc)), these PLEADINGS served a dual purpose as a sworn affidavit.  As the PLEADINGS invoke substantive principles of law which if proved may entitle PLAINTIFF to relief, dismissal is improper.  (Laclede Gas Co. v. Hampton Speedway Co., 520 S.W.2d 625 (Mo. App. 1975).)
  7. The PLEADINGS simply recite facts.  The only reason they are as long as they are is due to the massive defamation and other wrongdoing by the DEFENDANT.  The case law on Rule 55.05 seems to address instances where insufficient information is provided.  This is not the situation here.  The purpose of this fact-pleading requirement “is to present, define[,] and isolate the controverted issues so as to advise the trial court and the parties of the issues to be tried and to expedite the trial of a cause on the merits.” Sivigliano v. Harrah’s N. Kan. City Corp., 188 S.W.3d 46, 48 (Mo. App. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Although the petition does not have to plead evidentiary or operative facts showing an entitlement to the relief sought, it must plead ultimate facts demonstrating such an entitlement and cannot rely on mere conclusions.” Brock, 143 S.W.3d at 56.  The PLEADINGS meet the requirements.
  8. ATTORNEY O’CONNOR falsely and maliciously claims the PLEADINGS are “redundant and a verbose diatribe of immaterial information.”  There is nothing redundant.  The PLEADINGS are not verbose – simple statements of fact.  There is nothing whatsoever immaterial.  PLAINTIFF has sworn to this under penalty of perjury in the AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. WINDSOR DATED JUNE 28, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
  9. The function of pleadings is to “present, define and isolate controverted issues so as to advise the trial court and the parties of the issues to be tried and to expedite the trial of the cause on the merits.” Pillow v. General American Life Ins. Co., 564 S.W.2d 276, 280[2,3] (Mo. App. 1978).  This has been done to the best or the pro se PLAINTIFF’S ability.
  10. Rule 55.05 provides that a plaintiff’s petition must “contain [ ] a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” The purpose of this fact-pleading requirement “is to present, define[,] and isolate the controverted issues so as to advise the trial court and the parties of the issues to be tried and to expedite the trial of a cause on the merits.” (Sivigliano v. Harrah’s N. Kan. City Corp., 188 S.W.3d 46, 48 (Mo. App. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).  The failure to plead facts entitling the pleader to the relief requested, as required by Rule 55.05, deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to grant it. Id. (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Updegraff, 218 S.W.3d 617 (Mo.App. W.D. 04/10/2007).)  The PLAINTIFF has plead facts that establish that he is entitled to relief.
  11. The PLAINTIFF has researched Rule 55.05 in relation to the terms redundant, verbose, and immaterial, and he can find no appellate decisions in Missouri to indicate that this is a valid motion.  The DEFENDANT failed to cite ANY case law to support this MOTION.
  12. RSMo. § 509.320 provides that “A party may move to strike any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading.”  The DEFENDANT has failed to identify anything that is redundant or immaterial.
  13. RSMo. § 509.280 provides that “An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.”  There are no particulars in this MOTION, and it must be denied.
  14. DEFENDANT failed to file a motion to make PLAINTIFF’S PLEADINGS more definite and certain as required by Missouri law. (Ward v. Stubbs, 374 S.W.2d 40 (01/13/1964).)  (Burke v. City of St. Louis, 349 S.W.2d 930 (10/09/61).)
  15. The PLAINTIFF has been diligently attempting to obtain needed discovery, but he has been denied those subpoenas by the Clerk of the Court.  A motion to compel the Clerk to provide the subpoenas is pending with the Court as well as a motion for extension of time to respond to this MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS.  The PLAINTIFF is filing this RESPONSE as a hearing on the motion for extension cannot be heard until July 16, 2013.
  16. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court enter an order denying the MOTION TO STRIKE PLEADINGS and dismiss this matter; and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Submitted this 28th day of June, 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

Allie Overstreet files Motion to Dismiss Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint

Virginia-Arlington-Meet-Me-in-DC-2013-02-05 096-Allie-Overstreet-cropped-640w

Allie Overstreet files Motion to Dismiss Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint.

13LF-CV00641-Defendant-Overstreet-Motion-to-Dismiss

 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

BY DEFENDANT ALLIE L. OVERSTREET

Comes Now, William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”) and files this RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET.  PLAINTIFF shows the Court as follows:

  1. 1.             On May 30, 2013, an attorney purportedly acting for DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET (“DEFENDANT”) filed a MOTION TO DISMISS AND INCORPORATED SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT.
  2. 2.             Local Rule 21.2 requires that attorneys file an Entry of Appearance.  No such Entry of Appearance has been served on the PLAINTIFF, and no such Entry of Appearance is shown on the Court Docket.
  3. 3.             Pursuant to Local Rule 21.2, PLAINTIFF asks that this MOTION purportedly on behalf of DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET by Matthew J. O’Connor or the O’Connor Law Firm be stricken due to the fact that Matthew J. O’Connor and the O’Connor Law Firm failed to file an appearance and cannot be recognized by this Court.
  4. The purported MOTION TO DISMISS claims RSMo. § 508.010 requires that the Plaintiff must bring an action where the tort or injury occurred.  This is false.  This attorney has clearly misrepresented to this Court what the law reads.
  5. There is no such provision in RSMo. § 508.010.  RSMo. § 508.010 clearly provides “If the defendant is an individual, then venue shall be in any county of the individual defendant’s principal place of residence in the state of Missouri.”
  6. RSMo. § 508.010 (4) provides “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all actions in which there is any count alleging a tort and in which the plaintiff was first injured in the state of Missouri, venue shall be in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action.”
  7. RSMo. § 508.010 (8) provides that “In any action for defamation or for invasion of privacy, the plaintiff shall be considered first injured in the county in which the defamation or invasion was first published.”   In this action, there is defamation, and the county where the defamation was first published is Lafayette County Missouri.
  8. RSMo. § 508.010 (14) provides that “A plaintiff is considered first injured where the trauma or exposure occurred rather than where symptoms are first manifested.”  In this action, this is Missouri.
  9. As the PLEADINGS in this action explain, this case has to do with libel, slander, defamation, stalking, and harassment on the Internet.  Unlike the bricks and mortar world, postings on the Internet are distributed globally within a nanosecond.  The PLAINTIFF has been injured worldwide.  The PLAINTIFF first learned of the initial injuries when in Georgia.  The PLAINTIFF has clearly been damaged in Lafayette County, Missouri as well, and if this Court feels it is necessary, the PLAINTIFF seeks leave to amend the PLEADINGS to so state.
  10. The pro se PLAINTIFF drafted the pleadings in a manner that he felt negligence was adequately specified.  The DEFENDANT made false statements that she knew were false, and she made those false statements to damage the PLAINTIFF.  The DEFENDANT had a duty to not libel, slander, defame, harass, stalk, invade the privacy, or conspire with others to damage the PLAINTIFF, and she did all of the above.  The DEFENDANT had a duty to protect PLAINTIFF from injury.  The DEFENDANT failed to protect the PLAINTIFF.  The PLAINTIFF was injured as a result.  The DEFENDANT has an obligation to abide by the law, and she failed to do so.  The PLAINTIFF’S injuries were caused by the DEFENDANT.  If this Court feels more specificity is needed, the PLAINTIFF seeks leave to amend the PLEADINGS.
  11. The PLAINTIFF has been diligently attempting to obtain needed discovery, but he has been denied those subpoenas by the Clerk of the Court.  A motion to compel the Clerk to provide the subpoenas is pending with the Court as well as a motion for extension of time to respond to this MOTION TO DISMISS.  The PLAINTIFF is filing this RESPONSE as a hearing on the motion for extension cannot be heard until July 16, 2013.
  12. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court enter an order denying the MOTION TO DISMISS BY DEFENDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET; and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

 

Submitted this 28th day of June, 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

 

Allie Overstreet files Answer to Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint

F89A4853

Allie Overstreet files Answer to Bill Windsor’s Verified Complaint.  13LF-CV00641-Defendant-Overstreet-Answer-to-Complaint

  1. The so-called ANSWER could best be described as a despicable effort to circumvent the rules of civil procedure, defraud the Court, and deny justice to the PLAINTIFF.  The PLAINTIFF filed a VERIFIED COMPLAINT in which he swore that everything stated in the VERIFIED COMPLAINT was true and correct and based upon his personal knowledge.  It was signed under oath before a notary.  28 exhibits were attached, most of which the PLAINTIFF knows the DEFENDANT was familiar with.
  2. Yet, the so-called ANSWER to paragraphs 11, 12, 14-34, 38-57, 60, 63-72, 74, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 87-201, in the VERIFIED COMPLAINT was:  “Defendant states she is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations….”
  3. This dishonest so-called ANSWER includes facts sworn to by the PLAINTIFF such as:
    1. 60.  After Meet Me in DC, Overstreet seemed to become obsessed with http://Joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com, a site directed at the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff considers to be a hate site.  Overstreet kept sending Facebook messages and emails about it to the Plaintiff.  While Overstreet was regularly sending the Plaintiff postings by haters, she wanted the Plaintiff to stop mentioning them
    2. 115.  Upon information and belief, Overstreet sent the death notice message to the Plaintiff or conspired with someone to send it.
    3. 119.  At approximately 3:00 am on February 23, 2013, a posting appeared on the Lawless America Facebook page from the account of Overstreet.  [A true and correct copy of this message reviewed by the Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 521.]
    4. 141.  Overstreet responded with a message that was false.  [A true and correct copy of this message received by the Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit 509.]
    5. 143.   Overstreet continued to post false messages about the Plaintiff on Facebook.
    6. 144.  Overstreet lied numerous times in Facebook postings.
    7. 145.  At approximately 5:00 pm on Saturday, September 23, 2013, Overstreet posted this on the Lawless America Facebook page:  “That’s it? This is your big public ousting? A simple trace on the computer that sent that suicide message, would clear things up. Although I doubt that gets posted. Unblocking me so I can watch the train wreck, yet blocking me from commenting to defend myself is a bit juvenile I think.  Tell them, Bill, of the donations receipts. Tell them of the movie and Sundance fiasco. Tell them of the thousands of emails you copied me on. Tell them of the one where you are calling them stupid. Tell them of Homeland Security list Bill, and the filming at the capitol. Tell them how Stacey did send your hard drives back and how you gave permission to use the banner and camera. Tell Dottie what you really think of her. Tell them about Montana and the cops chasing you out of the state. Tell them how many social security numbers you have. Tell them about your database Bill. Tell them about the emails you DONT publish. Tell them about the tv show Bill. Tell them of your bad guy list and why they are on it . Tell them how many times you were in your basement when you you said you were on the road. Tell them about the death threats, or rather, the lack there of. Tell them about the trademark and copywrites Bill. Tell them how you sent me every email you ever sent any of them. Tell them about the meetings with movie agents. Go ahead, tell them. Tell them about your precious spreadsheets with all their personal info Bill. And while you are at it, tell them how to track IP’s and proxy’s, and how you never should have trusted a woman with brains enough to keep everything you ever said. …You have made a grave mistake jerking innocent people around for your own midlife crisis. Haters aren’t causing you to fail, YOU are causing you to fail. Lying about stupid shit trying to ruin peoples name, just because they dared to not bow correctly to you. Go ahead, trace the computer. I dare you. Tell them where all these criminal charges you have filed are. Tell them that you knew two weeks before DC we couldnt film in the capitol and that no legislators were coming. Tell them about the two under cover FBI agents in the Senate theater Bill. Tell them how you changed from a regular room to the biggest suite the Crowne had. Tell them how you told me there wont be any movement and you are going to back out. Tell them the timing in which this suicide message appeared. Neh…..you won’t do that, now will ya. Tell them how many letters you have written to congress Bill. Tell them who actually wrote them . Tell them who does all your work for you. Tell them why your son won’t associate his company with Lawless. Tell them how you didn’t renember Noah until I told you who he was. Tell them who got Stop the Silence to endorse you. Who got Washington Families United to endorse you. Who got you conference calls with media. Tell them how you forgoymt to copywrite Lawless and asked me what to do. Tell them how you have tens of thousands of unanswered emails. Tell them who did what Bill. I do dare you to sue me and file charges on me. I cannot wait. I will expose the real corruption within Lawless America gladly, and not on faacebook to a bunch of people who believe in you. I hope you do go to the cops, but I know you won’t because they already know you well. You are the sick one, for not giving a shit about these peoples stories unless it is good PR for you. You are good at talking sweet but suck at covering your tracks. Bring it on Mr. Windsor, we will see where that suicide message came from and we will blow you wide open for all your lies and using these folks vulnerabilities to your advantage. I am not your average lemming and lying about me to publicly and maliciously discredit my name was a big mistake.” [A true and correct copy of this message is attached as Exhibit 531.]
    8. 191.  When you compare several of Overstreet’s Posts, it seems to show that her strategy with this death notice scam is to claim that the Plaintiff posted knowingly false information.
    9. 192.  Overstreet has posted a harassing, libelous, slanderous Facebook post in which she says Windsor is a liar and “make[s] shit up.
    10. 195.  Overstreet has posted a harassing, libelous, slanderous Facebook post in which she says the Plaintiff duped people.
    11. 197.  Overstreet has posted a harassing, damaging Facebook posting in which she encouraged people to leave Lawless America.
  4. These, and other paragraphs in the VERIFIED COMPLAINT, are all matters that DEFEDANT ALLIE LORAINE YAGER OVERSTREET has sufficient knowledge and information to answer.

 

Allie Overstreet continues cyberstalking Bill Windsor by posting negative messages on his YouTube page.

YouTube logo

Allie Overstreet continues cyberstalking Bill Windsor by posting negative messages on his YouTube page.

Professional cyberstalker, Sean B**shie, also posts on this page using his “tinyfeetnhands” alias.

SEAN-BOUSHIE-ALLIE-OVERSTREET-YOUTUBE-2013-05-17-2-45-20-AM-SOCIOPATH-STALKER

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that Bill Windsor is a stalker. Another All lie.

Virginia-Arlington-Meet-Me-in-DC-2013-02-05 096-Allie-Overstreet-cropped-640w

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that Bill Windsor is a stalker.  Another All lie.

I have never stalked anyone in my life.  I am simply exposing all the criminals who have cyberstalked me by filming stories about what they have done.  I don’t call them, write the, email them, follow them, or post lies about them.

Allie Overstreet is a serial liar.  She seems to be incapable of telling the truth, in my opinion.

ALLIE-OVERSTREET-YOUTUBE-2013-050-17-3-11-58-AM-STALKER

 

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that Bill Windsor is a liar. Another All lie.

YouTube logo

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that Bill Windsor is a liar.  Another All lie.

On or about May 10, 2013, Allie Overstreet posted this.  She claims the court transcript will show that I am a liar.  Bull shit.  I have the recording of the hearing, and I will post it for all to hear once I return to Georgia to retrieve it.

Allie Overstreet is a serial liar.  It’s one lie after another.

ALLIE-OVERSTREET-YOUTUBE-2013-05-10-3-26-47-AM-LIAR

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that people posting about her need to quit lying. Another All lie.

Virginia-Arlington-Meet-Me-in-DC-2013-02-06 335-Allie-Overstreet-cropped-640w

Allie Overstreet publishes on YouTube that people posting about her need to quit lying.  Another All lie.

Every word that I have published or said is true.  Allie Overstreet simply continues to lie.  At this point, I guess she can’t even tell the truth because so much of what she has said is totally false.  How would one change their story after lying so much?

ALLIE-OVERSTREET-YOUTUBE-2013-05-01-3-06-08-AM-QUIT-LYING