Bill Windsor has filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief with the Montana Supreme Court.

The facts and the law are overwhelming in William M. Windsor’s case, but Bill has already experienced the corruption of the Montana Supreme Court, so hope is not high.

Here is the Petition that Bill Windsor has filed in Helena, Montana…

Montana Annotated Code, Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 14(4) reads: “Original proceedings. An original proceeding in the form of a declaratory judgment action may be commenced in the supreme court when urgency or emergency factors exist making litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and when the case involves purely legal questions of statutory or constitutional interpretation which are of state-wide importance.”

Bill Windsor reports that when the Montana Supreme Court justices open the cover of his Petition, the first page is a full color photo of his Wanted Poster prepared by corrupt Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson. No explanation — just a full color photo of the Wanted Poster.

What follows is the actual Petition for Extraordinary Relief, fully verified under oath before a notary, that is a matter of public record filed with the Montana Supreme Court. This is a legal document produced without redactions. It contains the name of the man who attempted to murder Bill Windsor — Sean Boushie — 100 times, so the corrupt people in Montana may charge William M. Windsor with an additional 101 felonies for publishing this legal document, and that means 202 years in prison in their twisted world.

By the way, one of the things that those interested enough will learn from reading this is that there has never been a person who was denied the right to publish a person’s name. Searches of every federal and state appellate court decision in history reveal that there has never been such a case.

Here is the Petition. Joomla doesn’t like to retain paragraph numbers, so this is the actual document except for some formatting errors caused by Joomla:

PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

Comes Now, William M. Windsor (“Petitioner” or “William M. Windsor”) and files this PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF (“Petition”). William M. Windsor shows the Court as follows:

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14. The supreme court is an appellate court but is empowered by Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution to hear and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction. An original proceeding in the form of a declaratory judgment action may be commenced in the supreme court when urgency or emergency factors exist making litigation in the trial courts and the normal appeal process inadequate and when the case involves purely legal questions of statutory or constitutional interpretation which are of state-wide importance. William M. Windsor has been charged with five crimes in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana, and there is a bench warrant for his arrest. The judge who issued the Temporary Order of Protection (“TOP”) is no longer involved in the case, so what he was told at an ex parte hearing is not known. It is an emergency for William M. Windsor’s rights to be declared so that he will not have to be arrested and forced to stand trial for alleged offenses that are not viilations of the TOP and so that he will not lose potentially large awards in civil litigation that he has pending in Texas. With outstanding warrants that William M. Windsor feels he must fight while not incarcerated, he cannot appear at hearings in Texas. This has resulted in the dismissal of one case for “want of prosecution,” and it is urgent that this Court declare Windsor’s rights so his civil cases may be properly prosecuted.
It is appropriate for this Court to accept jurisdiction because Judge John W. Larson in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana has chosen to disregard freedom of speech, ignored the remand from this Court in June 2014, never held the required hearing on a permanent order of protection, and wants to pretend the TOP is still valid after 533 days.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The particular legal questions and issues are detailed below.

1. Are this Montana Supreme Court’s Decisions of February 25, 2014 and June 10, 2014 binding on Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana, and does William M. Windsor have the right to speak and print the words “Sean Boushie?”
2. Does William M. Windsor have the right to retain control of his personal property based upon an ex parte TOP and prior to the issuance of a permanent order of protection after being afforded due process and having a hearing?
3. Did the TOP expire?
4. Was the TOP invalid in Texas as it was an ex parte order and was not registered in Texas?
5. Is William M. Windsor not subject to Montana Annotated Code 40-4-121?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a matter involving a temporary order of protection (“TOP”) that was issued on August 23, 2013 by the Missoula Municipal Court.
William M. Windsor has been charged with five crimes, including three felonies, and faces at least seven years in the Montana State Prison for alleged violation of the TOP that was issued 533 days ago.
Sean Boushie has repeatedly threatened to hurt or kill William M. Windsor. Sean Boushie sent William M. Windsor approximately 88 emails and published hundreds of defamatory, harassing, and stalking comments online. Sean Boushie was sent 24 cease and desist notices to stop the stalking. Sean Boushie published the offer of a reward for William M. Windsor’s murder. Sean Boushie has published that he shot at William M. Windsor in August 2013, missed, and hit a car next to William M. Windsor. Sean Boushie has committed approximately 300 counts of criminal acts. That William M. Windsor is a victim of stalking by Sean Boushie is easily proven, but the courts in Montana have ignored the overwhelming evidence apparently because Sean Boushie is being protected because of work that he does for government entities.
William M. Windsor exposed the wrongdoing of Sean Boushie through online publications, and he traveled to Montana to film a pilot for a proposed weekly television show that exposed Sean Boushie, the University of Montana, law enforcement and judges in Ravalli and Missoula counties. William M. Windsor never emailed Sean Boushie, never threatened Sean Boushie, never published defamatory, harassing, or stalking comments about Sean Boushie, never received a cease and desist notice from Sean Boushie, never offered a reward for Sean Boushie’s death, never shot at Sean Boushie, never followed Sean Boushie or his wife, was never in Sean Boushie’s presence, and never spoke to Sean Boushie.
But William M. Windsor’s attempts to get a TOP against Sean Boushie were all denied; judges lied in orders; law enforcement ignored the overwhelming proof of crimes by Sean Boushie.
On August 21, 2013, Sean Boushie filed a petition for a Temporary Order of Protection against William M. Windsor in the Missoula Municipal Court. [Exhibit #1.]
On August 23, 2013, Missoula Municipal Court Judge Judge Sam Warren granted Sean Boushie’s petition, and a TOP was issued. [Exhibit #2.]
On August 23, 2013, William M. Windsor was served with the TOP in favor of Sean Boushie because he filmed a television show in Montana.
The TOP was fraudulently obtained with a perjured affidavit by Sean Boushie, a serial criminal. William M. Windsor did nothing whatsoever that constitutes stalking or assault.
On August 26, 2013, William M. Windsor filed a sworn MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION in Missoula Municipal Court (“MMC”). [Exhibit #3.] It was never addressed.
On August 26, 2013, William M. Windsor filed a sworn ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OF SEAN BOUSHIE AND SWORN PETITION FOR PERMANENT ORDER OF PROTECTION BY WILLIAM M. WINDSOR in MMC. [Exhibit #4.] It was ignored.
On August 26, 2013, William M. Windsorfiled an APPEAL TO THE Fourth Judicial District Court. [Exhibit #5.] Big mistake.
On September 26, 2013, a MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS was filed in the DC. [Exhibit #6.] It was ignored.
On September 30, 2013, William M. Windsor filed a sworn MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGE. [Exhibit #7.] It was denied.
On September 30, 2013, William M. Windsor filed a sworn NOTICE OF FILING OF PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT IN MONTANA SUPREME COURT AND MOTION FOR STAY. [Exhibit #8.]
On November 14, 2013, an ORDER AFFIRMING MUNICIPAL COURT RULING was entered in the DC. [Exhibit #9.]
On November 18, 2013, a sworn MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION to district court was filed in the DC. [Exhibit #10.] Filing was denied by Judge John W. Larson.
On November 19, 2013, a sworn MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION to municipal court was filed in the Missoula Municipal Court. [Exhibit #11.]
On November 20, 2013, a NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEALwas filed. [Exhibit #12.]
No hearing was ever set or held on the TOP by any court.
On February 25, 2014, this Court rendered a decision in Windsor v. Boushie, DA 13-0618. [Exhibit #13.]
On June 10, 2014, this Court rendered a decision in Windsor v. Boushie, DA 13-0785. [Exhibit #14.]
On August 14, 2014, William M. Windsor filed a Motion to Dismiss any attempts to obtain a protective order. [A true and correct copy of this MOTION TO DISMISS is included as Exhibit #15.] It was never addressed.
On October 3, 2014, the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana issued a Bench Warrant for William M. Windsor’s arrest. [A true and correct copy of the filing documents in State of Montana v. William M. Windsor, Case # DC 14-509 are included as Exhibit #16.]
On October 28, 2014, William M. Windsor was illegally incarcerated in Ellis County Texas for extradition on five crimes for alleged violation of the TOP. [A true and correct copy of the documents presented to William M. Windsor as the entire case file in State of Texas v. William M. Windsor are in Exhibit #17.]
On October 30, 2014 and for the next 52 days, William M. Windsor was denied bond in Texas because Judge John W. Larson refused to accept either a Texas or Montana bond of $100,000.
On December 11, 2014, William M. Windsor filed a FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS in Case #14-158 in Ellis County Texas. [A true and correct copy of this Petition is Exhibit #18.]
On December 19, 2014, William M. Windsor was released on an alleged PR Bond. [A true and correct copy of this alleged PR Bond is Exhibit #18.]
On December 19, 2014, William M. Windsor filed a NOTICE OF APPEAL in Case #14-158 in Ellis County Texas. [A true and correct copy of this Notice of Appeal is Exhibit #19.]
On December 30, 2014, the PR Bond was revoked when William M. Windsor did not attend a hearing that he was not noticed of while he was en route to Missoula, Montana to surrender.
On January 16, 2015, William M. Windsor filed a MOTION TO QUASH BENCH WARRANT in the Fourth Judicial District Court. [A true and correct copy of this Motion (excluding exhibits) is Exhibit #20.]
On January 26, 2015, William M. Windsor filed his Appellant’s Brief on his appeal of Case #14-158 in Ellis County Texas. [A true and correct copy of this Appellant’s Brief (excluding exhibits) is Exhibit #21.]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Judge John W. Larson of the Fourth Judicial District Court has ignored this Court’s decisions in this matter and has taken the position that William M. Windsor has no rights to freedom of speech and should be sent to the Montana State Prison for what could amount to a life sentence for sending a Tweet, sending an email, publishing the name “Sean Boushie” four times in legal documents that are public record, and not releasing personal property to Sean Boushie based on an ex parte TOP when no hearing was ever held. The TOP expired. A TOP cannot deny Constitutionally-protected rights as this Court has previously ruled in Windsor v. Boushie. Searches of every federal appellate court decision in history and every state appellate court decision in history reveal that there has never been a case where an American was denied the right to publish a name.

It is an emergency for this Montana Supreme Court to declare William M. Windsor’s rights as his life has been taken away by the wrongful actions of Judge John W. Larson of the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana. William M. Windsor has not surrendered in Missoula (and has never been served with the Bench Warrant and has no obligation to surrender), and he has been denied every imaginable right in his dealings with Montana law enforcement and the courts. It is extremely urgent for this Court to declare Windsor’s rights to Tweet, send emails to attorneys, publish legal documents containing the name “Sean Boushie,” retain his personal property, recognize that the TOP expired and was never valid in any state outside Montana.

ARGUMENT

argument #1 – ThIS MONTANA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 AND JUNE 10, 2014 ARE BINDING ON JUDGE JOHN W. LARSON AND THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOULA MONTANA, AND WILLIAM M. WINDSOR HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND PRINT THE WORDS “Sean Boushie.”

A. THIS COURT’S DECISION OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014 IS BINDING ON JUDGE JOHN W. LARSON AND THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOULA MONTANA, AND WILLIAM M. WINDSOR HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND PRINT THE WORDS “Sean Boushie.”

This Montana Supreme Court stated on February 25, 2014 that William M. Windsor has the right to blog as it is a Constitutionally-protected right.

Constitutionally-protected rights are not prohibited under stalking laws and may not be prohibited by orders of protection.

The principle of stare decisis requires that decisions of this Court are binding on Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana as well as on this Montana Supreme Court.

This Montana Supreme Court stated on February 25, 2014 that William M. Windsor has the right to blog as it is a Constitutionally-protected right.

“…the offense of stalking does not apply to a constitutionally protected activity, § 45-5-220(2), MCA, and, as the District Court noted, the blogging alleged here involved First Amendment ‘free speech’ rights with which [Windsor and Boushie] each appear familiar and in which they regularly engage.” (Windsor v. Boushie, DA 13-0618 (Mont. 02/25/2014).)

Constitutionally-protected rights are not prohibited under stalking laws and may not be prohibited by orders of protection.

The TOP cannot prohibit William M. Windsor from speaking or printing the name “Sean Boushie.”

This Montana Supreme Court must declare that it is William M. Windsor’s right to have freedom of speech, and this Montana Supreme Court’s decision of February 25, 2014 is binding on Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana; William M. Windsor has the Constitutionally-protected right to speak or print the name “Sean Boushie.”

b. THIS COURT’S DECISION OF June 10, 2014 REMANDED THIS CASE TO THE MISSOULA MUNICIPAL COURT FOR FURTHER ACTION, AND NOTHING WAS DONE, SO THE TOP IS VOID.

The decision says:

The TOP cannot prohibit William M. Windsor from speaking or printing the name “Sean Boushie.”

b. THIS COURT’S DECISION OF June 10, 2014 REMANDED THIS CASE TO THE MISSOULA MUNICIPAL COURT FOR FURTHER ACTION, AND NOTHING WAS DONE, SO THE TOP IS VOID.

The decision says:

“The District Court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP and remanding to the Municipal Court” for further proceedings. [Exhibit #14, Page 9, Paragraph 17.]

There were no further proceedings. No hearing was ever held.

This Montana Supreme Court must declare that it was William M. Windsor’s right to have a hearing within 20 days, and this Montana Supreme Court’s decision of June 10, 2014 is binding on Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana; failure to hold a hearing violated this Montana Supreme Court’s order and renders the TOP void.

c. the State of Montana IS BOUND BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE MONTANA CONSTITUTION, AND MCA 45-5-220(2) TO PROTECT the Constitutional right of freedom of speech, AND William M. Windsor has the right to publish the name “Sean Boushie” anywhere he chooses.

Freedom of speech is as fundamental as any right that we have in America.

Judge John W. Larsonand the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana ARE violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press as well as the Montana Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7. It provides:

“Section 7. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION, AND PRESS. Nolaw shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.” [emphasis added.]

Judge John W. Larsonand the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana is allowing the TOP to be interpreted to limit the ability for William M. Windsor to publish the name “Sean Boushie” anywhere. But, this Court has already ruled in Windsor v. Boushie that blogging cannot be denied by any order of protection, so clearly the Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana’s recent “interpretation” of the TOP is unconstitutional and is in contravention to this Montana Supreme Court’s decision.

This Montana Supreme Court has clearly stated that Montana is bound to the guarantees of the First Amendment by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the right to free speech is a fundamental personal right and “essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.”

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution both protect the right to free speech. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Montana is bound to the guarantees of the First Amendment by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. City of Whitefish v. O’Shaughnessy, 216 Mont. 433, 438, 704 P.2d 1021, 1024 (1985) (citing Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925)). Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution states that “[n]o law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression.” Additionally, under Article II, Section 7, “[e]very person shall be free to speak whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty.”

The right to free speech is a fundamental personal right and “essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” St. James Healthcare v. Cole, 2008 MT 44, ¶ 26, 341 Mont. 368, 178 P.3d 696 (quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 503–04, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1961, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984)). The “vast majority” of speech enjoys constitutional protection. State v. Lance, 222 Mont. 92, 102, 721 P.2d 1258, 1265 (1986).

See 6 Writings of James Madison 1790-1802, p. 336 (G. Hunt ed. 1906 DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 57 S. Ct. 255, 260 (1937), and Elmer E. Whitmore v. Kansas City Star, 499 S.W.2d 45 (07/23/73), among thousands of other rulings on freedom of speech.

This Montana Supreme Court must rule that William M. Windsor has the right to freedom of speech, and the State of Montana is bound to the guarantees of freedom of speech in the First Amendment by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Montana Constitution, and MCA 45-5-220(2); William M. Windsor has the right to publish the name “Sean Boushie” anywhere he chooses.

d. Sending an email to counsel for the University of Montana does not violate the TOP.

William M. Windsor has been charged with a felony for allegedly violating the TOP by sending an email to counsel for the University of Montana.

The charge reads:

“On or about the 6th day of February, 2014, the above-named Defendant committed the offense of violation of an order of protection when, with knowledge of the order, purposely or knowingly violated a provision of an order provided for in 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15, to wit: “Defendant emailed Claudia Denker-Eccles, Associate Counsel for the University of Montana, a third or subsequent offense.”

Exhibit #22 is a true and correct copy of what was sent on that date: Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Mary Wilson. This is a legal document that William M. Windsor was required to send to Claudia Denker-Eccles by federal law. As she was the attorney-of-record for the University of Montana, a defendant in a case filed by William M. Windsor, she had to be sent this notice and affidavit.

Page 1 of the TOP says the “Protected Persons” are Sean Boushie and Wynette Boushie. Claudia Denker-Eccles is not a “protected person.”

Page 2 of the TOP says:

“2. Respondent must not harass, annoy, disturb the peace of, telephone, email, contact, or otherwise communicate directly or indirectly with Petitioner and the following Protected Persons: Wynette Boushie and U of M Staff.”

U of M Staff was never defined. And if publishing a legal document was to be restricted in the TOP, the law requires that it be spelled out. William M. Windsor identified the ambiguity in the TOP in a Motion filed three days after he was served. [Exhibit #3.]

Montana law provides that orders of protection may apply only to the applicants. (Montana Annotated Code 40-15-116, 40-15-101, 40-15-102.) Attorney Claudia Denker-Eccles was not a victim nor was she an applicant, so this does not apply to her. [Exhibit #1.]

Legal mail is not restricted by Montana protective order statutes. In fact, the Montana Annotated Code 40-15-117 has a very specific provision to allow protected parties to opt to have the Montana Secretary of State receive their legal mail instead of them. Sean Boushie, Wynette Boushie, and Attorney Claudia Denker-Eccles did not opt for this.

There is nothing in the expired TOP to prohibit William M. Windsor from having contact with the attorney for the University of Montana. He was required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5 to do so.

This Court must declare that it is William M. Windsor’s right to send legally-required communications, and sending them does not violate the TOP.

E. sending a Tweet does not violate the TOP.

William M. Windsor has been charged with a felony for allegedly sending a Tweet. The charge reads:

“On or about the 30th day of December, 2013, the above-named Defendant committed the offense of violation of an order of protection when, with knowledge of the order, purposely or knowingly violated a provision of an order provided for in 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15, to wit: “Defendant posted Sean Boushie’s name on Twitter, a third or subsequent offense.” Elsewhere, this is stated to be the posting of a video with the title: “Bill Windsor is banned from the University of Montana and Sean Boushie. Corruption at its finest.”

William M. Windsor did not send such a Tweet, but if he had, it does not violate the TOP. Tweets are not discussed in the TOP. On June 10, 2014, this Montana Supreme Court ruled that the TOP provided that William M. Windsor could not post about Sean Boushie on www.SeanBoushie.com. He hasn’t, and this Tweet was sent on Twitter.

“Finally, the condition requiring Windsor to transfer SeanBoushie.com into Boushie’s name and to refrain from posting about Boushie on the site is also permissible within 40-15-201(2)(j), MCA….” [emphasis added.] (Windsor v. Boushie, DA 13-0785 (Mont. 06/10/2014), Page 8 ¶14.)

Strangely but fortunately, this Montana Supreme Court previously ruled in Windsor v. Boushie that William M. Windsor’s blogging is not stalking and cannot be denied by any order of protection.

Nowhere does any so-called “order of protection” state that William M. Windsor cannot send a Tweet. A Tweet is not a “post,” but it is a form of blogging.

Montana laws on protective orders are to promote safety and protection of all victims of stalking. Stalking is following someone or mailing, emailing, or having electronic communication with the protected person. Tweeting to people who sign up to receive your messages on Twitter does not fall anywhere in the definition of “stalking.”

This Montana Supreme Court must declare that it is William M. Windsor’s Constitutionally-protected right to send a Tweet, and sending a Tweet does not violate the TOP.

F. A temporary order of protection may not RESTRICT A PERSON’S RIGHT TO PUBLISH LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD.

William M. Windsor has been charged with two crimes for publishing the contents of two legal documents that are matters of public record.

One charge reads:

“On or about the 4th day of May, 2014, the above-named Defendant (William M. Windsor) committed the offense of violation of an order of protection when, with knowledge of the order, purposely or knowingly violated a provision of an order provided for in 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15, to wit: “Defendant posted an article on his website, www.lawlessamerica.com, authored by himself, which mentioned Sean Boushie three times.”

The second charge reads:

“On or about the 4th day of July, 2014, the above-named Defendant committed the offense of violation of an order of protection when, with knowledge of the order, purposely or knowingly violated a provision of an order provided for in 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15, to wit: “Defendant posted an article on his website, www.lawlessamerica.com, authored by himself, which mentioned Sean Boushie once.”

Exhibit 15 includes true and correct copies of the Affidavit and Information filed in the criminal case.

The TOP was unintelligible, as William M. Windsor stated in his sworn Motion on August 26, 2013. The TOP was never modified to make it intelligible.

Nowhere does any so-called “order of protection” state that William M. Windsor may not publish an article that contains a legal document filed in a court and made a public record. The final word on this was ordered by this Montana Supreme Court on June 10, 2014:

On June 10, 2014, this Montana Supreme Court ruled that the TOP provided that William M. Windsor could not post about Sean Boushie on www.SeanBoushie.com. He hasn’t. This article was published on www.lawlessamerica.com. The Montana Supreme Court previously ruled in Windsor v. Boushie that blogging is not stalking and cannot be denied by any order of protection.

These are not a “post” as can be clearly seen by examining the documents. The first is a 20-page article written and published on a news website. The article is about Sean D. Fleming of Madison Heights Michigan; it has nothing to do with Sean Boushie. The opening of the article says “The information printed here is from my Second Request for Admissions to Sean D. Fleming, and it seeks to have him to admit to the defamation.” So, this is an article that reprinted a legal document served on Sean D. Fleming, a Request for Admissions. Because Sean D. Fleming had made several defamatory statements about William M. Windsor, these had to be addressed. [Exhibit #23 is a true and correct copy of the article; it lists Request for Admissions numbers 231, 236, and 237.] Sean D. Fleming had published (#231) that William M. Windsor was retained by Lawless America Association to kill Sean Boushie. This is an outrageous false claim as William M. Windsor was never involved in any such thing. 236 and 237 had to do with two other statements by Sean D. Fleming about Sean Boushie.

Here’s the article that the second alleged crime refers to: Judge asked to charge Sean D. Fleming with Stalking and issue a Protective Order — https://lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1402:judge-asked-to-charge-sean-d-fleming-with-stalking-and-issue-a-protective-order&catid=139:joeyisalittlekid [Exhibit #24 is a true and correct copy of this article.]

Again, this is not a “post.”” This is a 10-page article. It appeared on www.LawlessAmerica.com, not www.SeanBoushie.com. The article is about Sean D. Fleming; it has nothing to do with Sean Boushie. The opening of the article says “Bill Windsor has filed a Petition for a Personal Protection Order against Sean D. Fleming of Madison Heights Michigan. William M. Windsor has sued Sean D. Fleming because he has defamed him hundreds of times, has accused him of countless crimes, including plotting to commit mass murder, and has falsely and maliciously reported him to a wide variety of agencies for crimes that William M. Windsor has not committed. Sean D. Fleming of Madison Heights, Michigan has stalked William M. Windsor in various ways. Here is the text of the portion of the petition for a protection order against Sean D. Fleming that was filed in the Oakland County Michigan Superior Court on July 3, 2014:” Page 2 of the 10 pages refers to a claim made by Sean D. Fleming or some of his co-conspirators that “I have been making up information about Sean Boushie for years….”

When the TOP was valid, it prohibited only a “post.” This is not a “post.” A post is defined by Wikipedia as “to publish a message in an online forum or newsgroup.” There is nothing in the TOP to prohibit William M. Windsor from publishing Sean Boushie’s name (“Respondent shall not post Petitioner’s name on liv.”). There is nothing in the TOP that says William M. Windsor cannot publish legal documents or cite what other people have published about Sean Boushie anywhere.

As stated above, no judge can legally order anyone to not post, print, or display the name of a person. Montana law states very clearly (Montana Annotated Code 45-5-220) that stalking does not apply to Constitutionally-protected activity. Publishing a public legal document online is a Constitutionally-protected activity.

There is no legal basis whatsoever to say that William M. Windsor must alter legal documents to change the content; that’s just plain illegal.

Montana laws on protective orders are to promote safety and protection of all victims of stalking. Stalking is following someone or mailing, emailing, or having electronic communication with the protected person. Publishing a legal document online does not fall anywhere in the State of Montana’s definition of “stalking.” Sean Boushie is a serial stalker, not a victim. Sean Boushie’s claims in his Application for a Temporary Order of Protection were a fabrication. [Exhibit #1.]

Sean Boushie was not harmed by the publication of a legal document regarding statements that were published online by Sean D. Fleming in Madison Heights Michigan.

If publishing a legal document was to be restricted in the TOP, the law required that it be spelled out. William M. Windsor identified the ambiguity in the TOP in an August 26, 2013 Motion for Modification. [Exhibit #6.]

This Montana Supreme Court must rule that it is William M. Windsor’s Constitutionally-protected right to tweet, publish the contents of legal documents that are matters of public record, publish the name “Sean Boushie,” and send legally-required communications to counsel for the University of Montana, and that nothing that William M. Windsor has done in this regard violated the TOP.

argument #2 – William M. Windsor’s right to retain control of his personal property prior to the issuance of a permanent order of protection after being afforded due process rights, and William M. Windsor was not required to release his personal property based on an ex parte TOP.

William M. Windsor has been charged with a felony for not releasing control of www.seanboushie.com to Sean Boushie.

The charge reads:

“On or about the 2nd day of October, 2014, the above-named Defendant committed the offense of violation of an order of protection when, with knowledge of the order, purposely or knowingly violated a provision of an order provided for in 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15, to wit: “Defendant has not released control of the website www.seanboushie.com to Sean Boushie, a third or subsequent offense.”

The TOP does not require William M. Windsor to release control of www.seanboushie.com. It says www.seanboushie.co. [Exhibit #2.] William M. Windsor does not have control of www.seanboushie.co. William M. Windsor cannot be required to release control of something he doesn’t own.

William M. Windsor has been under no obligation to surrender his personal property based on the ex parte TOP. William M. Windsor never received any such request. This was included in Sean Boushie’s perjured Petition for TOP, but this would have been addressed in the required hearing that was never held.

The TOP was unintelligible, as William M. Windsor stated in his sworn Motion for Modification on August 26, 2013. [Exhibit #3.] The TOP was never modified to make it intelligible.

The TOP was appealed on August 26, 2013 and remained on appeal until June 10, 2014 when the matter was remanded to the Missoula Municipal Court for the required hearing. No hearing was ever held, and the 20 days passed and the TOP expired.

Nowhere does any so-called “order of protection” state that William M. Windsor must release control of a website to Sean Boushie by any specific date or in any specific manner or prior to notice and an opportunity to be heard. No one has ever asked William M. Windsor to do anything in this regard. Exhibit 15 is a Motion to Dismiss in which William M. Windsor states that there was never a hearing as required by law, and there were no grounds for a permanent order of protection because it had to be based on a history of violence, and there was none. This Motion to Dismiss was never addressed by Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula Montana. There was no legal way for William M. Windsor to be permanently required to release his property or stop posting. This Montana Supreme Court has previously ruled that blogging by William M. Windsor is a Constitutionally-protected activity. However, the TOP is not even clear about what it says as it says stop posting “on lit,” or “on it,” or “on liu”, or “on liv.” [Exhibit #2.]

There is no explanation of what “released” means. There is no date given for a “release.” There is no indication that this requested relief somehow takes precedence over the very clear law that required a hearing within 20 days.

There is no indication that this requested relief somehow takes precedence over William M. Windsor’s personal and business property rights.

SeanBoushie.com has been William M. Windsor’s property, and no court has the right to take someone’s property without due process of law. This type of relief cannot be ordered on an ex parte basis. Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. William M. Windsor had no notice, and he was never heard. Therefore, William M. Windsor is very confident that he had no such obligation. In fact, Missoula County Montana Judge Karen Townsend seems to agree because the Order (included in Exhibit #16) does not require this.

No court has the right to require the media to stop publishing or give its websites to those the media is exposing, especially when there can be no proof that anything that William M. Windsor has published is false. Operating a news website with factual information is a Constitutionally-protected activity. Freedom of the press protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment. This conflicts with this Montana Supreme Court’s previous decision in Windsor v. Boushie that blogging is not stalking and cannot be denied by any order of protection. Therefore, you darned sure can’t take away William M. Windsor’s website.

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides:

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” Article 17 of the Montana Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”

Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation of a property or liberty interest.

Procedural due process requires notice and the opportunity to be heard. See State v. Kingery (1989), 239 Mont. 160, 166, 779 P.2d 495, 499. State v. Sol, 282 Mont. 69, 936 P.2d 307 (Mont. 03/20/1997).)

Procedural due process requires that parties be given reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard; these due process requirements are reflected in MAPA in §§ 2-4-601, and 2-4-612(1), MCA. Section 2-4-612(1), MCA, provides that ‘[o]pportunity shall be afforded all parties to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved.” (Anaconda Public Schools v. James D. Whealon, 268 P.3d 1258, 363 Mont. 344 (Mont. 01/24/2012).)

“Our state constitution also guarantees due process, 1972 Mont. Const., Art. II, § 17, and equal protection of the laws, Mont. Const., Art. II, § 4.” (Mt’n States Tele. v. Dept. of Pub. Serv. Reg., 634 P.2d 181, 194 Mont. 277 (Mont. 09/08/1981).)

Constitution of the United States Fourteenth Amendment“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [emphasis added.]

No court has the authority to violate the United States Constitution and take away William M. Windsor’s property. Besides, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Constitution of the State of Montana Article 2 Declaration of Rights Section 7 grant William M. Windsor the undeniable right of free speech and freedom of the press.

This Montana Supreme Court must declare that it is William M. Windsor’s right to retain control of his personal property prior to the issuance of a permanent order of protection after being afforded due process rights, and William M. Windsor was not required to release his personal property based on an ex parte TOP.

argument #3 – The TOP expired.

A temporary order of protection may only be issued for up to 20 days, and that time elapsed. The TOP was issued on August 21, 2013. The TOP expired on either September 11, 2013 or June 27, 2014. [Exhibit#2.]

“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.” (MCA 40-15-201.)

The law is clear, and statutes should be construed according to the plain meaning of the language used within the statute. (State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 323, ¶ 54, 292 Mont. 214, ¶ 54, 974 P.2d 1139, ¶ 54.)

A hearing was required in 20 days, and there was no hearing.

Montana Annotated Code § 40-15-202 (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 Montana Supreme Court’s decision of June 10, 2014 was in error when it said there was a hearing. There was never a hearing.

The law is precise “A hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection.” The TOP expired after 20 days. There was absolutely no legal justification to pretend it was valid after 20 days. [Exhibit 15.]

There was never a hearing, so it expired on September 16, 2013, as clearly stated on the TOP. The TOP expired on September 17, 2013 because the required hearing was not held on September 16, 2013.

On June 10, 2014, the APPEAL to this Court resulted in an opinion. Judge Michael E. Wheat, Judge Beth Baker, Judge Laurie McKinnon, Judge Patricia Cotter, and Judge Jim Rice refused the requested relief to vacate the TOP and said the matter was to be remanded to the Missoula Municipal Court (so a hearing could be held on whether there should be a permanent order of protection). This Montana Supreme Court did not dispute the mandatory 20 day requirement for a hearing. [Exhibit 14.]

In July 2014, a hearing was set on the permanent order of protection in the Missoula Municipal Court. William M. Windsor did not receive notice of the hearing until he received a telephone call saying it was cancelled. It was cancelled because Sean Boushie filed to remove the case from the Missoula Municipal Court to the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana. William M. Windsor did not contest the removal as his review of the statue indicated that he had no basis to object.

If all of the “appeals” stopped the clock from ticking on the 20 days, that clock resumed ticking on June 10, 2014. William M. Windsor filed his first appeal three days after he was served with the TOP. Seventeen more days would be June 27, 2014. So, on June 27, 2014, the 20 days expired for the mandatory hearing. At the very least, the TOP expired on that date.

This Montana Supreme Court has established its own binding precedents that a hearing is required in 20 days.

“MCA § 40-15-202(1) states that ‘[a] hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection,’ wherein ‘the court shall determine whether good cause exists for the temporary order of protection to be continued, amended, or made permanent.’ … 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. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the District Court’s order granting both the Permanent Order of Protection and the Amended Permanent Order of Protection. 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 (Supreme Court of Montana) (Mont. 05/06/2004).) [emphasis added.]

“Given the seriousness associated with a permanent order of protection, § 40-15-202(1), MCA, provides that a hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date that the court issues a temporary order of protection.” (Keller v. Trull, 158 P.3d 439, 337 Mont. 188, 2007 MT 108 (Supreme Court of Montana) (Mont. 05/08/2007).)

“Section 40-15-202(1), MCA, states that a hearing must be conducted within 20 days from the date the court issues a TOP. The purpose of the hearing is for the court to determine “whether good cause exists for the temporary order of protection to be continued, amended, or made permanent.” The statute also provides that the hearing may be continued at the request of either party for good cause or by the court. 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.]

A “temporary” order of protection that exists for over 533 days is not temporary, and there is absolutely no legal or factual basis for there to be a permanent order.

Montana Annotated Code § 40-15-204. Written orders of protection. “(1) The court may, on the basis of the respondent’s history of violence, the severity of the offense at issue, and the evidence presented at the hearing, determine that to avoid further injury or harm, the petitioner needs permanent protection. The court may order that the order of protection remain in effect permanently.” [emphasis added.]

There was never a hearing. William M. Windsor has no history of violence in 66 years. Nothing whatsoever. There was no offense by William M. Windsor, so severity would also be scored zero. This has been well-documented with sworn testimony.

“Section 40-15-204, MCA, states, ‘The court may, on the basis of the respondent’s history of violence, the severity of the offense at issue, and the evidence presented at the hearing, determine that to avoid further injury or harm, the petitioner needs permanent protection. The court may order that the order of protection remain in effect permanently.’ Bock contends that he has no ‘history of violence,’ and that therefore the order of protection was improperly granted and made permanent.” (Bock v. Smith, 107 P.3d 488, 326 Mont. 123, 2005 MT 40 (Supreme Court of Montana) (Mont. 02/22/2005).)

(See also In re Schiller, 309 Mont. 431, 47 P.3d 816, 2002 MT 103 (Montana Supreme Court) (Mont. 05/16/2002); Harry Richards v. Steve Short, DA 14-0273, 2014 MT 298N (Supreme Court of Montana) (November 12, 2014).)

This Court must declare the TOP expired after 20 days when there was no hearing on a permanent order of protection.

argument #4 – The TOP was not valid in Texas as it was AN EX PARTE ORDER AND WAS not registered in Texas.

The TOP was valid only in Montana.

Montana Annotated Code § 40-15-301 (6) “An order of protection issued under this section is effective throughout the state. Courts and law enforcement officials shall give full faith and credit to all orders of protection issued within the state.” [emphasis added.]

Anything that William M. Windsor did in Texas, where he was from August 31, 2013 to December 29, 2014 is not restricted by any order of protection.

For an order of protection from another state to be valid in Montana, it must be filed in a Montana court. The law is similar in Texas.

Montana Annotated Code § 40-15-301 (7) provides: “A certified copy of an order of protection from another state, along with proof of service, may be filed in a Montana court with jurisdiction over orders of protection in the county where the petitioner resides. If properly filed in Montana, an order of protection issued in another state must be enforced in the same manner as an order of protection issued in Montana.” [emphasis added.]

Texas Family Code provides for registration of a foreign protective order in Texas. There has been no such registration in Texas.

An ex parte TOP has no validity in Texas or any other state that subscribes to the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic-Violence Protection Orders Act.

“A foreign protective order is valid if the order: (1) names the protected individual and the respondent; (2) is currently in effect; (3) was rendered by a tribunal that had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under the law of the issuing state; and (4) was rendered after the respondent was given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard consistent with the right to due process, either: (A) before the tribunal issued the order; or (B) in the case of an ex parte order, within a reasonable time after the order was rendered.”

The TOP was rendered ex parte without notice or an opportunity to be heard, so the ex parte TOP is not valid in Texas.

The Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic-Violence Protection Orders Act provides for registration — a fairly simple procedure that requires a certified order and an affidavit from the protected individual that the order is current. The protected individual may receive a certified copy of the order which then may be presented for enforcement either in a tribunal or by a law enforcement officer. There was no registration, and a 533-day-old TOP simply does not qualify.

This Court must declare that it is William M. Windsor’s right to not be subject to the terms of any ex parte TOP in any state other than Montana as he was never given a hearing, and the TOP was not valid in Texas or any state other than Montana.

ARGUMENT #5 — WILLIAM M. WINDSOR IS NOT SUBJECT TO Montana Annotated Code 40-4-121.

“TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW CHAPTER 4. TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE, CHILD CUSTODY, SUPPORT – Part 1. Separation — Dissolution of Marriage. 40-4-121. Temporary order for maintenance or support, temporary injunction, or temporary restraining order. It provides various things in regard to ‘…a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation or in a proceeding for disposition of property or for maintenance or support following dissolution of the marriage….’”

William M. Windsor was not ever involved in marriage, child custody, or support with Sean Boushie or Wynette Boushie. Yet the State of Montana has cited this on each of the five alleged offenses.

This Court must declare that William M. Windsor has not violated Montana Annotated Code 40-4-121.

RELIEF SOUGHT

William M. Windsor prays that this Court enter an order declaring William M. Windsor’s rights:
1. declare that this Montana Supreme Court’s Decisions of February 25, 2014 and June 10, 2014 are binding on Judge John W. Larson and the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula, Montana, and William M. Windsor has the right to speak and print the words “Sean Boushie;”
2. declare that William M. Windsor has the right to retain control of his personal property prior to the issuance of a permanent order of protection after being afforded due process and having a hearing, and William M. Windsor was not required to release his personal property based upon an ex parte TOP;
3. declare that the TOP has expired;
4. declare that the TOP was not valid in Texas as it was an ex parte order and was not registered in Texas;
5. declare that William M. Windsor is not subject to Montana Annotated Code 40-4-121;
6. declare that William M. Windsor’s criminal charges are not violations of any valid order of protection and should be dismissed; and
7. provide any other relief that this Montana Supreme Court feels is appropriate.

This 5th day of February, 2015,

_________________________

William M. Windsor

5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, SD 57108

Email: Pro-Se-1@outlook.com, Phone: currently confidential

For those who don’t know, the short story is this: Bill Windsor set out to film a movie exposing government, judicial, and law enforcement corruption. He traveled to every state (except Alaska), and he filmed over 750 stories of corruption and has thousands more who wanted to be filmed. Evil people, some working for various government entities, set out to destroy Bill Windsor and the movie, Lawless America. Bill Windsor has been defamed online in the largest case of defamation in U.S. history. His life has been threatened many times. A UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA EMPLOYEE, Sean Boushie, attempted to murder him. He was put into the Ellis County Texas Jail illegally for 53 days as a political prisoner. The State of Montana has filed five criminal charges against William M. Windsor for sending a Tweet, publishing the UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA EMPLOYEE‘s name, Sean Boushie (the would-be killer), four times, sending a legal notice email to a University of Montana attorney, and filming the movie and the pilot for a TV show that will expose Montana as the most corrupt state in the country. Now Bill Windsor is wanted for these dastardly crimes, and he is hiding out. In a recent development, “law enforcement” had LawlessAmerica.com removed from the Internet. This website contains over 1,400 articles exposing corruption. Bill Windsor worked with a friendly offshore hosting company to return the website to the Internet outside the clutches of American evildoers. He wasn’t so lucky when Facebook removed the movie page falsely claiming it promoted nudity, pornography, and solicitation of sex … or when AT&T canceled the email that he used on everything related to the movie for years falsely claiming he violated their Terms of Service.

For more information, see:

Nobodies.us – U.S. Government Corruption – Corrupt Judges — Dishonest Government Officials — Whistleblower Productions — Slanderella — Slanderfella — Joeyisalittlekid

Ellis County Texas — Ellis County Texas Corruption — Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson — Ellis County Texas Jail — Ellis County Texas Judge Bob Carroll — Ellis County Mafia — Ellis County Texas Sheriff Johnny Brown — Joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com — Lawless America — Missoula County Judge John W. Larson — Montana Mafia — Texas Extradition Law — University of Montana Employee — Joeyisalittlekid — Albert Fiorini — Allie Overstreet — American Mothers Political Party — Betsi Bixby — Brandy Owen — Brannon Bridge — Brenda Williamson — Carrie Walters — Casey P. Hargrove — Cheryl Sosby — Claudine Dombrowski — Clyde Hargrove — Connie Bedwell — Curtis W. Butler — Dale Trowbridge — David Hargrove –Deanna Kloostra — Deborah Parks — Diane Gochin — Gail Lakritz — Hargrove Real Estate — Jay Hoskins — Jennifer Dotson — Kathy A. Carroll — KC Hargrove — Kellie McDougald — Kimberly Wigglesworth — Kinley Hardin — L Wilson — Lorraine Tipton — Loryn Ryder — Madeline Hargrove — Mark Supanich — Mary Bagnaschi — Megan Van Zelfden — Melanie White — Michelle Stilipec — Morgan Hargrove — Nancy Rolfe — Renee Harrington — Sam Round — Sean D. Fleming — Shannon Miller — Shonda Hargrove — Sid Wallingford Gray — Stacy Emerson — Trinity Baker

Contact Bill Windsor at Pro-Se-1@outlook.com – www.LawlessAmerica.com — www.facebook.com/billwindsor1 – www.youtube.com/lawlessamerica — www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/ — www.LawlessAmerica.org — www.twitter.com/lawlessamerica — www.BillWindsor.com

If you don’t know the story of Bill Windsor’s illegal incarceration, please read it. Part 1 is the background to the story. Part 2 discusses when Bill Windsor was handcuffed and taken to jail from a hearing in a civil suit that he filed against the people who have viciously defamed him in what is the largest case of defamation in U.S. history. Part 3 details early days in jail and attempts to get someone/anyone to help; the conspiracy to keep William M. Windsor in jail begins to come to light. Part 4 covers events from November 26, 2014 through December 2, 2014 as the corruption of Judge Bob Carroll erupts in full bloom. Part 5 introduces Ellis County Texas District Attorney Patrick Wilson into the corruption picture. Part 6 leads to a December 19, 2014 at which Bill Windsor was ordered released by Judge Cindy Ermatinger. Bill Windsor was never arrested, just illegally incarcerated for 53 days — a political prisoner!

If you want to reach Bill Windsor, his home address is 5013 S Louise Ave #1134, Sioux Falls, SD 57108. That mail gets forwarded to him once a week. His new email is WindsorInMontana@yahoo.com. His phone is currently confidential, 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

Photo courtesy of FedEx

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose corruption in government, law enforcement, and the judiciary. 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 of 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.

{jcomments on}

William M. Windsor

Leave a Reply Cancel reply