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


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.




Leave a Reply