Bill Windsor files response to Mark Supanich’s Motion for an All Writs Injunction

Virginia-Arlington-Meet-Me-in-DC-2013-02-06 041-640w

Bill Windsor files response to Mark Supanich’s Motion for an All Writs Injunction.

13LF-CV00461-Defendants-Motion-for-All-Writs-Injunction-by-Supanich-Response-by-Windsor-2013-07-10

13LF-CV00461-Defendants-Motion-for-All-Writs-Injunction-Supanich

Friend of Allie Overstreet, Michelle Stilipec, files a Better Business Bureau Complaint against Bill Windsor’s son’s company that is nothing but libel, slander, defamation, lies, threats, and stalking

Oregon-Portland-Michelle-Stillipec-Lawless-America-Movie-2013-01-04 022-640w

Friend of Allie Overstreet, Michelle Stilipec, files a Better Business Bureau Complaint against Bill Windsor’s son’s company that is nothing but libel, slander, defamation, lies, threats, and stalking

Here is a Better Business Bureau complaint that this outrageous cyberstalker has filed against my son’s company, an entity that is not now and never has been involved with my Lawless America project.

Here’s what she filed, filled with libel, defamation, and more:

Online Harassment. They have purchased a website in my name although I have never done business with them. My friends and I have reported the fraudulent business practices of Bill Windsor and his scam company, Lawless America. Bill is the father of Ryan Windsor, the head of Alacatraz Media. As retaliation, Bill is suing and stalking anyone who speaks up, as is our right. On June 4, 2013, using the Alcatraz Media Company name, Bill purchased website domains in the names of his victims, he is now creating horrible websites listing our names, pictures, contact info, pictures of our houses that he himself has stalked us to get, and claims we are criminals who have made slanderous remarks and death threats about him. The intention is to harass us and he claims that he will sue us until we are bankrupt and has indicated that he is doing background checks on us and wants to collect damages us from us to finance his fake company, Lawless America. However the websites themselves were purchased under the name of Alcatraz Media, a company none of us has done business with EVER, unless Lawless America is a scam by the whole family rather than just the father, Bill. Please and thank you for looking into this for us. The proof of this is here:http://www.dailychanges.com/alcatrazmedia.com/2013-06-05/

You can click on the Sean B**shie, or Allie Overstreet website to see that he is using these sites to harass us and says that he is a member of the media and that we are not allowed to read the websites and that if we do that he considers is stalking. Ryan Windsor has told us that Bill is extremely mentally ill and that he left home because they staged a failed intervention. And now Bill is using the family company to stalk and harass us all. Resolution: We don’t want money from this particular issue. We just want to harassing websites taken down. Unfortunately Bill Windsor has been declared a vexatious litigant and is not allowed to sue anyone without first obtaining permission from the court. He is stalking us and harassing us with the desires that we sue him, so that he can have access to the courts and use the courts to stalk us and collect damages. What the lawsuits will amount to and how much the family will be responsible for allowing an extremely mentally ill man to use their company to harass others is up for the courts to decide. We are simply requesting that the BBB be aware that that the company is allowing this abuse and illegal activity. And we thank you for your time if there is anything you can do to help us with this situation.

When time permits, I will set up www.MichelleStilipec.com to expose this woman for the criminal that I believe she is. She’s a friend of Allie Overstreet.

Michele-Stillipec-BBB-Complaint

Proof of the fundamental lie in her so-called Complaint; this shows the ownership of the domain that is available to anyone with a simple WHOIS search online:

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-7-9-2013 2-28-52 PM

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-7-9-2013 2-29-29 PM

Here is the Complaint as it appears on the Better Business Bureau – BBB – website:

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-BBB-7-9-2013 3-17-09 PM

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-BBB-7-9-2013 3-18-11 PM

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-BBB-7-9-2013 3-18-41 PM

MICHELLE-STILIPEC-BBB-7-9-2013 3-19-09 PM

Bill Windsor files Response to Motion Dismiss that was filed by Allie Overstreet

2013-04-08-Missouri-Lexington-Overstreet-Hearing-bill-preparing-2-640w

Bill Windsor files Response to Motion Dismiss that was filed by Allie Overstreet.

  1. By filing an ANSWER 30 days after the VERIFIED COMPLAINT was filed but not filing a MOTION TO DISMISS until 35 days after the VERIFIED COMPLAINT was filed, DEFENDANT OVERSTREET lost the right to seek a dismissal. “…a motion to dismiss is made before the filing of an answer….” (In re Marriage of Busch, 310 S.W.3d 253 (Mo.App. E.D. 04/27/2010).)   Rule 55.27 provides that the filing of a motion to dismiss is to be before filing an answer. (State of Missouri v. Bonacker, 791 S.W.2d 494, (June 20, 1990).)  Rule 55.27 says: “a motion making any of these defenses shall be made: (A) Within the time allowed for responding to the opposing party’s pleading….”  30 days was the time allowed, and 35 days was too late.
  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. Pursuant to Local Rule 21.2, PLAINTIFF asks that this MOTION purportedly on behalf of DEFENDANT 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.  The VERIFIED COMPLAINT indicates that the first known defamation was “On or about February 20, 2013, Overstreet began communicating to the Plaintiff’s supporters that she had been ‘banned from Lawless America.’”  This was a message that came from Lexington County Missouri.  On February 21, 2013, the PLAINTIFF believes DEFENDANT OVERSTREET began sending emails and posting messages designed to trick the PLAINTIFF into falsely reporting the death of a boy.  If DEFENDANT OVERSTREET sent these messages and posts or conspired with others to do so, this came from Lexington County Missouri.  This will only be determined through discovery.

13LF-CV00461-Defendant-Overstreet-Motion-to-Dismiss

13LF-CV00461-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-by-Overstreet-Response-by-Windsor-2013-06-28

13LF-CV00461-Defendant-Overstreet-Motion-to-Dismiss-Response-by-Windsor-Amended-2013-07-09

Woman who Bill Windsor asked to edit Allie Overstreet’s video records her opinions on Allie Overstreet’s lack of credibility

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

Woman who Bill Windsor asked to edit Allie Overstreet’s video records her opinions on Allie Overstreet’s lack of credibility

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU2q4eCFxh4&feature=share&list=UUYedsjTrVvv8q0QFFaGo4Gw

 

Bill Windsor files a Response to Defendant Allie Overstreet’s Notice of Hearing

Courtroom Gavel

Bill Windsor files a Response to Defendant Allie Overstreet’s Notice of Hearing.

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING

OF DEFENDANT ALLIE OVERSTREET

Comes Now, William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”) and files this RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING OF DEFENDANT ALLIE OVERSTREET.  PLAINTIFF shows the Court as follows:

1.             On July 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm Central Time, PLAINTIFF received an email with a document titled “NOTICE OF HEARING” seeking to have a hearing at 11:00 am on July 16, 2013.

2.             But on July 16, 2013 at 11:00 am, a hearing will be held in Division 1 of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Lafayette County, Missouri, Judge Dennis Rolf, presiding on the PLAINTIFF’s motions, and no others.  The PLAINTIFF anticipates that the allotted time will be needed for his motions.

3.             This hearing was scheduled by the PLAINTIFF three weeks in advance because the rules and procedures in this Court require that a party first call the Clerk of the Court to determine when the judge will be available.  A date and time are then given, and then the party issues a Notice of Hearing.

4.             Neither DEFENDANT ALLIE OVERSTREET nor attorney Matthew O’Connor called the Clerk of the Court to request a date and time for a hearing, as the Clerk told the PLAINTIFF is required.  The Clerk was on vacation.  DEFENDANT ALLIE OVERSTREET should not be allowed to break the rules yet again, deny the PLAINTIFF his rights, and interfere with the long-scheduled hearing.

5.             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.

6.             Pursuant to Local Rule 21.2, PLAINTIFF asks that all filings 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.

7.             WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court strike the NOTICE OF HEARING and enter an order denying DEFENDANT ALLIE OVERSTREET’s request for a hearing until she sets her own hearing date as is required by the rules and the procedures of this Court; and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

 

Submitted this 7th 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

13LF-CV00461-Defendant-Overstreet-Notice-for-Hearing-Response-2013-07-07

Bill Windsor files preliminary response to Defendant Mark Supanich’s Motion for Hearing

Courtroom Gavel

Bill Windsor files preliminary response to Defendant Mark Supanich’s Motion for Hearing.

PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF HEARING

AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH

Comes Now, William M. Windsor (“Windsor” or “Plaintiff”) and files this PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH.  PLAINTIFF shows the Court as follows:

  1. 1.             On July 7, 2013 at 8:49 pm Central Time, PLAINTIFF received an email with a document titled “MOTION AND NOTICE OF HEARING.”
  2. The Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure provide 30 days to respond to a motion, and the PLAINTIFF is being denied that time should this MOTION be heard on July 16, 2013.
  3. 3.             On July 16, 2013 at 11:00 am, a hearing will be held in Division 1 of the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Lafayette County, Missouri, Judge Dennis Rolf, presiding.  This hearing is on the PLAINTIFF’s motions, and no others.  The PLAINTIFF anticipates that the allotted time will be needed for his motions.
  4. This hearing was scheduled by the PLAINTIFF three weeks in advance because the rules and procedures in this Court require that a party first call the Clerk of the Court to determine when the judge will be available.  A date and time are then given, and then the party issues a Notice of Hearing.
  5. DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH did not call the Clerk of the Court to request a date and time for a hearing, as the Clerk told the PLAINTIFF is required.  DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH should not be allowed to break the rules, deny the PLAINTIFF his rights, and interfere with the long-scheduled hearing.
  6. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that this Court enter an order granting denying consideration of DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH’s MOTION until the PLAINTIFF is given 30 days to respond; enter an order denying DEFENDANT MARK SUPANICH’s motions to be considered at a hearing until he set his own hearing date as is required by the rules and the procedures of this Court; and grant such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Submitted this 7th 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

13LF-CV00461-Defendant-Supanich-Motion-for-Hearing-Response-2013-07-07