SCREEN

Profile

Menu Style

Cpanel
Headlines:

Bill Windsor shattered the backboard with a slam dunk of the Missoula County Attorney's Office

dunk-backboardshattered-slanchreport-blogspot-com-200w 

Bill Windsor has just shattered the backbroad with a slam dunk of the Missoula County Attorney's Office.

At 4 am on October 6, 2015, William M. Windsor filed his Brief in Response to the State of Montana's Brief attempting to defend how an ex parte TEMPORARY order of protection (that the statutes say is good for 20 days) could be valid for 546 days as the State has claimed.

Bill Windsor doesn't want to seem overconfident, but the law is clear and has been for 774 days...

Bill Windsor is not an Attorney (Thank GOD)!  But he can read.

Montana Code Annotated ("MCA") 40-15-201 says the court may "issue an immediate temporary order of protection for up to 20 days...."  MCA 40-15-202 mandates: "A hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection."

The temporary order of protection ("EX PARTE TOP") was issued by Missoula Municipal Court Judge Sam Warren on August 23, 2013 based upon the perjured affidavit of Sean Boushie.  Judge Sam Warren never even spoke with Sean B**shie, much less Bill Windsor.  The law could not be clearer.  "up to 20 days," and "a hearing MUST be conducted within 20 days."

The EX PARTE TOP was served on unsuspecting William M. Windsor on August 23, 2013.  There was never a hearing.  October 6, 2015 marks Day 774.  Day 20 was September 12, 2013.  The word "must" is a mandate.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  MUST.

So, from the day the EX PARTE TOP was issued, Bill Windsor has said it was invalid and based upon fraud upon the court.  Since September 13, 2013, he has consistently said that the EX PARTE TOP expired.

As it turns out, it was never valid in the first place.  In conducting weeks of research in preparation for filing this Response Brief that Judge James A. Haynes requested, Bill Windsor learned the simplest explanation as to why the EX PARTE TOP was void.  Missoula Municipal Court Judge Sam Warren screwed the pooch; he set the expiration for 24 days, not 20.  Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to issue that order since it is not allowed by statute.  This makes it a VOID ORDER, and void orders have no legal validity.  This has been the law for 207 years, just a little longer than the State of Montana wants to claim the EX PARTE TOP was valid against me.

An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608; Forrester & MacGinniss v. Boston etc. M. Co., 29 Mont. 397, 74 P. 1088, 1091.)

dunk-backboardshattered-slanchreport-blogspot-com-640w

Something that Bill Windsor filed in trying to get the bogus criminal charges against him dismissed managed to get the attention of Judge James A. Haynes.  Then on 9/11, Judge James A. Haynes scheduled a hearing with just 24 hours' notice, and he ordered Deputy Missoula County Attorney Jennifer Clark to file a brief within 14 days explaining how the EX PARTE TOP was valid.  Bill Windsor was given 14 days to file a Response Brief.  Jennifer Clark filed her "State’s Brief RE: Validity of Temporary Order of Protection" on September 23, 2015.  William M. Windsor filed his Response Brief on October 6, 2015.  Here is a pdf of "William M. Windsor's Response to State’s Brief RE: Validity of Temporary Order of Protection."  Legally, this is a SLAM DUNK.

The following is a narrative of key information taken from William M. Windsor's Response to State’s Brief RE: Validity of Temporary Order of Protection that has been filed in Case # DC-14-509 in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County Montana.  The case is State of Montana v. William M. Windsor.


 INTRODUCTION

Bill Windsor filed his first challenge to the validity of the ex parte temporary order of protection (“EX PARTE TOP”) in this case on January 16, 2015. (See Motion to Quash Bench Warrant – Docket #7.)  That challenge destroyed any presumption of validity.   It then became the State’s burden to prove the EX PARTE TOP was in effect at the time of the alleged violations. (See State v. Kvislen, 2003 MT 27 (Mont. 02/19/2003).)  

Eight months after Bill Windsor challenged the validity of the TOP, this Court ordered the State to brief the question of whether the TOP “got lost in the system” or it remained in effect at the time of the alleged violations.  The State’s Brief was filed on September 23, 2015.  The State’s argument that the TOP “[i]s valid and has remained in effect throughout these proceedings” is based an incorrect assumption that a valid TOP was issued to begin with, an incorrect recitation of the material procedural facts, and the State’s misunderstanding of MCA 40-15-302

This Response will show that the EX PARTE TOP was void from its inception.  Even if this Court finds there was initially a valid EX PARTE TOP, the State has failed to prove it was still in effect during the time of the alleged violations.  

The EX PARTE TOP was not lost in the system.  The life of an ex parte TOP is limited to the brief term necessary for the issuing court to hold a hearing.  The hearing ensures that the respondent is afforded his due process right to be heard before a court can restrain his liberty or property for an extended period.  Here, due to multiple errors in the MMC, long before Bill Windsor allegedly violated the EX PARTE TOP, it expired by operation of law.

In addition, the State failed to show there was ever a TOP that restrained Bill Windsor for the actions that support Charges I, II, and IV against him. 

The State failed to establish any legal basis for the charges against Bill Windsor, and all of the charges against him must be dismissed with prejudice.

dunk-broken-backboard-640w

 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2013, Sean B**shie filed an ex parte Petition for Temporary Order of Protection (“Petition”) against Bill Windsor in the Missoula Municipal Court (“MMC”).

On August 23, 2013, an Ex Parte Temporary Order of Protection (“EX PARTE TOP”) was granted to Sean B**shie by Judge Sam Warren, pursuant to MCA 40-15-201. (Exhibit 1.)

The EX PARTE TOP states twice that it expires on 09/16/2013. The 08/23/2013 entry on the Docket in MMC Case # OP-2013-00198 reads, “Expiration Days: 24 Expiration Date 9/16/2013.” (State’s Exhibit 1.)

On 08/23/2013, the Docket in the MMC shows a hearing was scheduled for 09/09/2013 on Order of Protection, as does the EX PARTE TOP.

On August 26, 2013, Bill Windsor appealed the EX PARTE TOP to the District Court (“DC”) pursuant to MCA 40-15-302(1). This created DV-13-969 in the DC. (State’s Exhibit 4.)

The hearing set for September 9, 2013 was never held. An August 28, 2013 entry on the MMC Docket reads: “Hearing result for Order of Protection held on 09/09/2013 02:30 PM: Hearing Not Held. OP-2013-00198 – Appealed to District Court.” (State’s Exhibit 1.)

On September 30, 2013, the Docket in the MMC shows “Email notification from District Court to cancel entry.” (State’s Exhibit 1.)  Bill Windsor did not receive notice or explanation of this entry.

On October 4, 2013, the Docket in the MMC shows “Case status changed: closed.” (State’s Exhibit 1.)  Bill Windsor did not receive notice or explanation of this entry.

On November 14, 2013, Judge John W. Larson of the DC entered an Order Affirming the Municipal Court Ruling and Order of Remand. (State’s Exhibit 4.)

On November 18, 2013, Bill Windsor emailed a Motion for Reconsideration to the Clerk of the DC, and it was received [State’s Exhibit 9], but Judge John W. Larson issued an order rejecting the motion due to the fact that the EX PARTE TOP had already been remanded and the DC no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the motion. The State incorrectly indicated that the motion for reconsideration “was denied.” (State’s Brief, p.2.)  

On November 19, 2013, the MMC filed the DC Order Affirming the Municipal Court Ruling and Order of Remand.

On November 25, 2013, Bill Windsor filed a Notice of Appeal of the DC’s November 14, 2013 order to the Montana Supreme Court (“MSC”). [State’s Exhibit 4.]

On December 5, 2013, the MMC entered a Bench Order that contains two misstatements indicating that Bill Windsor’s appeals deprived that court of jurisdiction over the petition. The order also purported to extend the EX PARTE TOP pending the outcome of the appeal of the DC’s order. These errors are discussed in the arguments below. (State’s Exhibit 8.)

On December 13, 2014, Notice of Bill Windsor’s Appeal to the MSC was filed in the DC. (State’s Exhibit 4.)

On May 28, 2014, the MMC entered a docket entry that says: “per Judge Warren extend expiration 6-8 wks and send notice of hearing, call state supreme court to try to get originals returned.” (State’s Exhibit 1.)

On June 10, 2014, the MSC issued an Opinion saying “The District Court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP and remanding to the Municipal Court.” [State’s Exhibit 10.]

On July 8, 2014, a Remittitur from MSC was issued. [State’s Exhibit 10.] (The State incorrectly indicated July 11. State’s Brief p.3.) (State’s Exhibit 4.)

On July 11, 2014, the Remittitur from the MSC was filed in the DC. (State’s Exhibit 4.)

On July 14, 2014, the MMC entered a docket entry that says: “Remanded from MT Supreme Court.” (State’s Exhibit 1.) The State’s Brief says the case was returned to Municipal Court on July 14, 2014.) Actually, nothing was remitted or returned to the MMC because jurisdiction never left the MMC during the appeal of the DC’s order. This is proven by the MSC Docket. (Exhibit 2.)

The subsequent litigation of the Petition is irrelevant to the question before the Court, therefore it is not recited here.

On October 3, 2014, the State filed an Information charging William Michael Windsor with five violations of the EX PARTE TOP.  The earliest alleged violation occurred on December 30, 2013, long after the EX PARTE TOP had expired. (See Docket #s #1 - #2 - #3 - #4 - #5.]

On January 16, 2015, Bill Windsor filed his first challenge to the validity of the EX PARTE TOP in this case, arguing that the EX PARTE TOP expired prior to the alleged allegations. (See Motion to Quash Bench Warrant – Docket #7.)  

On September 11, 2015, this Court ordered the State to file a brief to establish that the EX PARTE TOP was valid at the time of Bill Windsor’s alleged violations or whether the EX PARTE TOP “got lost in the system.”

dunk-shatter-greatlakeshoops-com-640w

 ARGUMENTS

I.       The EX PARTE TOP was void from the outset for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The State has conspicuously ignored its burden to establish the validity of the EX PARTE TOP from its inception. The EX PARTE TOP was issued against Bill Windsor pursuant to Montana Code Annotated (“MCA”) 40-15-201. (Exhibit 1.)  However, the order issued by Judge Sam Warren exceeded the limits of the statutory authority.  A judge has no jurisdiction to issue an order that violates a statute. (See Schoonen v. Reichle, 175 P.3d 306, 340 Mont. 382 (Mont. 12/19/2007).)

MCA 40-15-201(4) provides:

The court may, without requiring prior notice to the respondent, issue an immediate temporary order of protection for up to 20 days if the court finds, on the basis of the petitioner’s sworn petition or other evidence, that harm may result to the petitioner if an order is not issued before the 20-day period for responding has elapsed.

The EX PARTE TOP was issued on August 23, 2013 and stated twice that it would expire on September 16, 2013. The term of the EX PARTE TOP was therefore 24 days, as shown on the MMC Docket (State’s Exhibit 1). There is no authority that permits a Montana court to issue an original ex parte TOP for more than 20 days. The MMC exceeded its authority under MCA 40-15-201(4), therefore the EX PARTE TOP was issued without jurisdiction.

“Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal.” (Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920).

A void order is one “of no legal force or effect….” (Forrester & MacGinniss v. Boston etc. M. Co., 29 Mont. 397, 74 P. 1088, 1091.)

Based upon a plain reading of the unambiguous requirements of MCA 40-15-201 and MCA 40-15-202, the EX PARTE TOP failed to comply with these statutes and was, accordingly, improperly issued as a matter of law. (See Asmundson, 283 Mont. at 146, 940 P.2d at 107; In re Marriage of Dana C. Christian, 295 Mont. 352, 983 P.2d 966, 1999 MT 189 (Mont. 08/10/1999).)

The Court can conclude its inquiry into the validity of the EX PARTE TOP here. The order was not valid, and Bill Windsor cannot be charged with violating a void order.  There is no legal basis for the charges against Bill Windsor, and all charges must be dismissed with prejudice.

Should this court find that the EX PARTE TOP was initially valid, the TOP expired long before the dates of any of Bill Windsor’s alleged violations.

II.     The MMC failed to hold the required MCA 40-15-202 hearing on the Petition.

Sean B**shie’s August 21, 2013 Sworn Petition for Temporary Order of Protection and Request for Hearing sought two independent forms of relief.  In response, the MMC issued the EX PARTE TOP and scheduled the requested hearing for September 9, 2013.

Assuming the MMC had issued a valid TOP to begin with, it had the authority and a statutory obligation pursuant to MCA 40-15-202 to conduct a hearing on an order of protection:

40-15-202. Order of protection -- hearing -- evidence. (1) A hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection. The hearing date may be continued at the request of either party for good cause or by the court. If the hearing date is continued, the temporary order of protection must remain in effect until the court conducts a hearing. At the hearing, the court shall determine whether good cause exists for the temporary order of protection to be continued, amended, or made permanent. [emphasis added.]

The term of the EX PARTE TOP against Bill Windsor could have been extended for a brief time, if the MMC had continued the hearing.  But the MMC did not continue the September 9, 2013 hearing.  There is an August 28, 2013 docket entry that says the hearing was not held and that there was an appeal to the DC. (State’s Exhibit 1.)  There is no further mention of scheduling a hearing.  On October 4, 2013, 42 days after the EX PARTE TOP was issued, the MMC inexplicably made a docket entry that indicated the case was closed.

The MMC’s reasons for failing to hold a hearing, and for closing the case remain a mystery.  

The most significant due process protection is notice and the opportunity to be heard before the government may deprive an individual of liberty or property. (Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 32 (1976); United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53, 126 L.Ed.2d 490, 503 (1993).)

Due process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of such a liberty interest. Steab v. Luna, 2010 MT 125, ¶ 22, 356 Mont. 372, 233 P.3d 351. (In re Marriage of Sampley, DA 14-0555 (Mont. 05/05/2015).)

The legislative intent behind a TOP is to permit courts to very briefly put the safety and welfare of a Petitioner ahead of a Respondent’s constitutional rights.  This interim order does in fact, deprive a Respondent of his liberty and/or property without allowing him due process.  The TOP is intended to address an immediate safety concern while the court notifies the respondent and holds a hearing.

“Section 40-15-202(1), MCA, states that a hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date the court issues a TOP. … In summary, the TOP statutes contemplate a temporary order, followed quickly by a hearing, and continuation of the order as a temporary, amended, or permanent order of protection….” (Lear v. Jamrogowicz, DA 12-0523, Supreme Court of Montana (Mont. 06/04/2013).) [emphasis added.]

The plain language of MCA 40-15-201 and 40-15-202 indicates the Respondent cannot be restrained by a TOP for more than a short period.  If a Petitioner hopes to restrain a Respondent for more than 20 days, it is his duty to promptly prosecute his petition.  In this case, Judge Sam Warren failed to hold the hearing, and Sean B**shie neglected to pursue his right to that hearing.  Neither of these failures can result in the long-term restraint of Bill Windsor’s liberty when he has not been heard.

III.    Appeal of the MMC's EX PARTE TOP to the DC did not divest the MMC of jurisdiction over the Petition and hearing.

Bill Windsor appealed the EX PARTE TOP to the DC pursuant to MCA 40-15-302(1):

40-15-302. Appeal to district court -- order to remain in effect.(1) An order issued by a justice’s court, municipal court, or city court pursuant to 40-15-201 is immediately reviewable by the district judge upon the filing of a notice of appeal. The district judge may affirm, dissolve, or modify an order of a justice’s court, municipal court, or city court made pursuant to 40-15-201 or 40-15-204.

 (2) A case in which an order has been issued by a justice’s court, municipal court, or city court pursuant to 40-15-201 or 40-15-204 may be removed to district court upon filing of a notice of removal.

The State incorrectly claims Bill Windsor removed the Petition to the DC: “Defendant filed an appeal ‘pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 40-15-302’ and properly removed jurisdiction from municipal court to district court.” [emphasis in original]. (State’s Brief p.5.)

Bill Windsor’s Notice of Appeal did not include any request to remove.  The Notice includes multiple references to an appeal, and the word “remove” does not appear once.  To remove under MCA 40-15-302(2), a party has to file a Notice of Removal.

The DC recognized that Bill Windsor was requesting an appeal without any removal.  This is reflected on the DC docket, which entered only a “Notice of Appeal.”  All actions taken by the DC were consistent with an appeal, not a removal. (State’s Exhibit 4.)

Nor would there be any reason to believe that appeal of the EX PARTE TOP to the DC automatically transferred jurisdiction over the Petition to the DC.  MCA 40-15-302(2) clearly requires affirmative action from one of the parties to remove the Petition during the TOP appeal.

Since the Petition was not removed to the DC, the State’s contention that the MMC was deprived of jurisdiction to hold the MCA 40-15-202 hearing is unfounded.

On appeal without removal, the MMC retains jurisdiction over the Petition and the responsibility to hold a hearing.  There is no authority to indicate otherwise.

On appeal with removal, jurisdiction over the Petition would pass to the DC, which would hold a hearing if one had not previously occurred. In either scenario permitted by MCA 40-15-302, there is a court that has unhindered jurisdiction over the Petition and hearing.  In this case, Bill Windsor did not remove the Petition, and the duty to hold a hearing remained the province of the MMC.

State v. Asmundson, 283 Mont. 141, 146, 940 P.2d 104 (1997), is a Missoula County case that dealt with similar confusion over litigation of a TRO issued pursuant to MCA 40-4-121. The TRO was issued by a justice court (“JC”).  The following day, the Respondent filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the DC.  The JC vacated the scheduled hearing on the TRO and ordered it to remain in effect pending review by the DC.  The Respondent was charged with violating the TRO, for events that occurred after the expiration date on the TRO.  The MSC found that the TRO expired by its own terms prior to the alleged violations, that, “[t]he Justice Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice of transmittal and continue the TRO.”  The MSC also found, “The Justice Court also lacked jurisdiction under §40-4-123, MCA, to sua sponte continue the TRO pending review by the District Court.”

Since Sean B**shie’s Petition was not removed to the DC, the State’s contention that the MMC was deprived of jurisdiction to hold the MCA 40-15-202 hearing is unfounded.  There is no authority to suggest the MMC ever lost jurisdiction over the Petition and hearing.

Clearly, Bill Windsor’s Constitutional rights were not stayed.

IV.   The EX PARTE TOP expired when the DC remanded the EX PARTE TOP to the MMC. It did not remain in effect throughout the proceedings.

As the State has explained, “On November 14, 2013, Judge Larson issued an order affirming the temporary order of protection and remanded the case to Municipal Court for further proceedings….” (State’s Brief, p.2 ¶3.)

40-15-302(3) If a temporary order of protection or an order of protection issued by a court of limited jurisdiction is appealed or removed to an appellate court, the order continues in full force and effect unless modified by the appellate court.

Assuming the EX PARTE TOP was valid and the terms of the order and the statute may be ignored, pursuant to MCA 40-15-302(3), jurisdiction over the EX PARTE TOP issued by the MMC (a court of limited jurisdiction) transferred to the DC on appeal.  The EX PARTE TOP would have remained in effect until the DC affirmed the EX PARTE TOP and remanded to the MMC on November 14, 2013.

Read in isolation, MCA 40-15-302(3) appears to inflict a TOP on a Respondent for an unlimited period of time, whether he has had a hearing or not.  A Respondent who appeals a TOP, may be subject to the order for longer than if he had waived his right to appeal.  Under this statute, a Respondent pays a heavy price to have a TOP reviewed.  But the statute must not be read in isolation.  The terms of the TOP must be followed, and Constitutional rights must not be violated.

It seems the legislative intent is for the appeal to conclude very quickly, perhaps even before the issuing court holds its hearing.  In that ideal situation, MCA 40-15-302(3) would not be a problem.  But Bill Windsor’s appeal lasted 83 days.     

Perhaps if the MMC had held the hearing in a timely manner, Bill Windsor could have informed the DC of the results and asked for the EX PARTE TOP, which would no longer be necessary, to be deemed expired.  The appeal could have continued to its conclusion without holding Bill Windsor’s liberty hostage.   

Unfortunately, since there was no hearing, Bill Windsor was held hostage by the EX PARTE TOP.   By the time the EX PARTE TOP was remanded, it was 83 days old and should have been deemed long-expired.  Bill Windsor was deprived of liberty and property without a hearing for much longer than the law anticipates or allows.

Bill Windsor submits that by the clear language of MCA 40-15-302(3), the latest date the EX PARTE TOP could possibly have expired was November 14, 2013.  This was more than a month before any of the alleged violations occurred.  All charges against Bill Windsor must be dismissed as untimely.

V.     There was no automatic extension of the TOP pending conclusion of the MSC appeal.

Contrary to the State’s assertion, MCA 40-15-302 did not apply to Bill Windsor’s appeal to the MSC.  MCA 40-15-302(1) applies to the direct appeal of a TOP, from a court of limited jurisdiction.  Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 22 applies to appeals from DC to MSC.  It provides that a motion for stay must be filed in the DC to stay a judgment or order of the district court pending appeal.  There were no motions filed, and there was no stay ordered.

Bill Windsor’s appeal to the MSC was from the DC’s order.  It was not a direct appeal of the EX PARTE TOP.  Further, the DC is not a court of limited jurisdiction.  There is no statute that authorizes a continuation of a TOP on such an appeal.  

By the time Bill Windsor filed his Notice of Appeal to the MSC, the DC had remanded the EX PARTE TOP to the MMC.  At that point, the MMC, which had always retained jurisdiction over the Petition, regained jurisdiction, if such a thing is possible, over the expired EX PARTE TOP.

Once again, the MMC sua sponte entered an order to continue the EX PARTE TOP pending the outcome of the appeal to the MSC.  The MMC stated it was extending the EX PARTE TOP because it believed the Notice of Appeal to the MSC had divested it of jurisdiction over the EX PARTE TOP.  It doesn’t seem likely that if the MMC had lost jurisdiction over the long-expired EX PARTE TOP again, it could have entered an order extending it. 

In any event, the State’s argument that the EX PARTE TOP was automatically extended under MCA 40-15-302 is incorrect.  There is no authority to suggest a TOP would continue through not only one, but two appeals.  

Finally, to the extent there can still be any question as to whether the TOP could have been extended beyond the appeal to the DC by orders of the DC or MMC, … Under § 40-15-202(1), MCA, "a court must hold a show cause hearing before rendering its decision to deem permanent a temporary order of protection. A review of the record indicates that such a hearing did not occur. Hence, the Permanent Order of Protection and the Amended Permanent Order of Protection issued by the District Court was a manifest abuse of the District Court’s discretion....We order that the District Court vacate both the Permanent Order of Protection and the Amended Permanent Order of Protection.” (Coogler v. Coogler, 321 Mont. 243, 90 P.3d 414, 2004 MT 122 (Mont. 05/06/2004).) [emphasis added.]

The EX PARTE TOP was long expired by November 14, 2013.  This was more than a month before any of the alleged violations occurred.  All charges against Bill Windsor must be dismissed as untimely.

In the event that this Court disagrees with the foregoing arguments that the EX PARTE TOP was void to begin with and in any case it expired prior to any of the alleged violations, the EX PARTE TOP is completely invalid as to at least three of the State’s charges, as explained below.

VI.    Three of the State’s charges accuse Bill Windsor of violating non-existent provisions of the EX PARTE TOP.

Counts I and II in the State’s Information allege that Bill Windsor, “knowingly violated a provision” of the EX PARTE TOP when he “posted an article on his website, www.lawlessamerica.com, authored by himself, which mentioned Sean B**shie….” The State has not identified the EX PARTE TOP provision that was violated by these acts.  There is no such provision.  The EX PARTE TOP does not prohibit Bill Windsor from publishing anything on www.LawlessAmerica.com.

Count IV in the State’s Information alleges that defendant “knowingly violated a provision” of the EX PARTE TOP when, “Defendant posted Sean B**shie’s name on Twitter....” Id.  The State has not identified the EX PARTE TOP provision that was violated by this act.  There is no such provision.  The EX PARTE TOP does not prohibit Bill Windsor from publishing anything on Twitter.

There was only one publishing restraint in the EX PARTE TOP.  In the list of specific restraints imposed on Bill Windsor, paragraph 14 of the EX PARTE TOP reads as follows: “Release of www.seanboushie.co to petitioner.  Respondent shall not post Petitioners name on it.” (Exhibit 1, p. 3).

Bill Windsor appealed the EX PARTE TOP to the DC, which affirmed.  Bill Windsor then appealed the DC’s order to the MSC.  When discussing various provisions of the EX PARTE TOP, the MSC referenced ¶14 as, “[t]he condition requiring Windsor to transfer SeanB**shie.com into B**shie’s name and to refrain from posting about Sean B**shie on the site is also permissible...” (State’s Exhibit 10, p. 8).  The MSC Opinion is the law of the case in regard to this issue, and it clearly states that the restriction is limited to publishing on SeanB**shie.com.

There is simply no rational basis for the State to claim that Bill Windsor’s alleged LawlessAmerica.com posts or his alleged Twitter post violated the EX PARTE TOP.  Charges I, II, and IV must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

The State’s burden was to prove a valid TOP against Bill Windsor was issued, that it remained in effect at the time of the alleged violations, and that it is a valid basis for all of the charges. The State has failed to meet its burden, and all charges against Bill Windsor must be dismissed.

PRAYER

William M. Windsor prays that this Court order all charges to be dismissed with prejudice; order that the EX PARTE TOP was a void order; order that the orders in DC-14-509 Docket #’s 2, 5, 20, and 66 are vacated; order that Windsor’s bail bond is released and all bail requirements are canceled; and grant such other relief as the Court feels is appropriate.

Submitted this 6th day October, 2015,

_________________________________

William M. Windsor

 

dunk-rim-on-floor-640w

Now, it is in the hands of Judge James A. Haynes.  Bill Windsor believes Judge Haynes knows that the charges must be dismissed, and he expects an order dismissing all charges with prejudice so they can't be filed again.

The impact of all of this is that Bill Windsor will not have to stand trial as much as he wanted to present his defense to the jury as his own attorney.  He will not spend the rest of his life in the Montana State Prison, so Gail will not become his best friend in Deer Lodge Montana.  He can get rid of this gigantic green and red flashing GPS ankle monitor.  Constitutional rights violated for 772 days and counting (First, Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments); unlawfully imprisoned and denied bond for 134 days; exposed to Staph, MRSA, Tuberculosis, and Herpes; victimized by corrupt law enforcement, judges, and prosecuting attorneys; illegal seizures and searches of his private property; medical problems inflicted by the abuse; and much more.

 Photos copyright


For a quick update on Bill Windsor's saga and his trial, see this summary on LawlessAmerica.com.

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his home address is 110 East Center Street #1213, Madison, SD 57042.  That mail gets forwarded to him once a week.  His email is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This. His phone is 770-578-1094, but it is not answered; messages are checked by dialing in to Verizon from a state far, far away, and Bill receives an email with the name, number, and one sentence summary of each message.

For the Lawless America videos, see www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica.  Bill Windsor's Facebook page is www.facebook.com/billwindsor1  Bill Windsor's Twitter account is www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica.  And click here for the Lawless America Facebook page that has just magically reappeared.


windsor-bill-2014-09-05-navy-shirt-cropped-200w
 

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.


 FABOJ

Judges

Judicial Corruption is rampant.  Our rights to a fair trial are a myth.  Many judges are totally corrupt.

Constitution

Our fundamental rights have been taken away by a government of wrongs. Stolen by corruption.

Attorneys

Misconduct is everywhere. Dishonesty abounds. Perjury, subornation of perjury, corruption!

Police

Abuse, Dishonesty, Corruption.  It's all common with Police and Law Enforcement.

Government

Government Dishonesty is Bad.
We must find honest people
and make them accountable
to We the People.