Source: http://lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1786:freedom-of-speech-is-a-fantasy-in-america-when-corrupt-law-enforcement-and-corrupt-judges-want-to-screw-you&catid=162:denial-of-constitutional-rights&Itemid=236
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:23:14+00:00

Document:
Freedom of Speech is a fantasy in America when corrupt law enforcement and corrupt judges want to screw you.
I know. I'm Bill Windsor.
I have spent the last two days drafting a Civil Rights Complaint to be filed in federal court. It seeks an injunction to stop the criminal prosecution of me because the alleged crimes aren't crimes. They are fundamental Constitutional rights -- the freedom to publish the name of a man who attempted to murder me, the freedom to send an email to an attorney, and the freedom to film a movie exposing outrageous corruption in Montana and Texas. And oh yes, the Freedom to Tweet.
This is incredibly frustrating because the issues are so ridiculous.
Most of you who read what I write have your own outrageous issues. How can we get our rights back? We must get our rights back.
There are actually a number of Constitutional rights that have been blown to smithereens in my criminal case. First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment.
The basic issue is that the TEMPORARY Order of Protection ("TOP"), issued based upon a complete fabrication by Sean Boushie, directly restrained my right of Freedom of Speech. Judge Sam Warren's TOP violates the United States and Montana Constitutions. If it is interpreted to say that it doesn't allow me to say or print the name "Sean Boushie," that's unconstitutional. If Title 40 Chapter 15 of the Montana Code Annotated is interpreted to say that is permissible, then the statute is unconstitutional. And if the Montana Supreme Court indicated that I couldn't print the name "Sean Boushie," they provided undeniable evidence that the statute is unconstitutional.
The TOP also restrained my right to media access to certain sources of information, and constituted a prior restraint violating my First Amendment rights.
The doctrine of prior restraint on publication finds its roots in the United States Supreme Court decision in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931), 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357, in which the Court struck down a statute which allowed Minnesota to enjoin publication of malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspapers. The Court stated: "it has been generally, if not universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the [freedom of press] guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Near, 283 U.S. at 713, 51 St.Ct. at 630. The Court held that the order entered pursuant to the Minnesota statute was an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press.
The Second Circuit employed this rationale in Application of Dow Jones & Co. (2nd Cir. 1988), 842 F.2d 603, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 946, 109 S.Ct. 377, 102 L.Ed.2d 365. In Dow Jones, the trial court had prohibited parties and attorneys from making extra-judicial statements to the media. Media organizations challenged the order as being a prior restraint of their right to gather news. Dow Jones, 842 F.2d at 608. The Circuit Court held that the determination of whether a gag order constitutes a prior restraint depends upon the status of the challenging party. A gag order constitutes a prior restraint when challenged by the "individual gagged," but not when challenged by a "third party." Dow Jones, 842 F.2d at 609.
The primary purpose of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is to encourage and protect an "unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes. . . ." New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 269, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 700. In other words, the First Amendment protects not just speech itself but the entire process of communication, including the exchange of ideas and information between speaker and listener.
Based upon my research, there has never been anyone criminally prosecuted in America for publishing a person’s name or for sending an email to an attorney. I am the first.
As most famously described by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Other types of speech by individuals also fall outside the protection against prior restraint, including fighting words and obscenity. In this case, it was just the words “Sean Boushie.” No fire, no fighting words, no obscenities. Charges # 2 and 5 are that the words “Sean Boushie” were published in two legal documents that appeared online. They were the words of Sean D. Fleming of Madison Heights Michigan.
Publishing on a website is a Constitutionally-protected activity, so it should not be restricted by a protective order, but in this matter, I am being prosecuted criminally for publishing a man’s name (Sean Boushie) on a website.
The Montana Supreme Court ruled on February 25, 2014 in Windsor v. Boushie that blogging is not stalking and cannot be denied by any order of protection.
No judge can legally order anyone to not post, print, or display the name of a person. But Montana judges have.
No court has the right to require the media to stop publishing, especially when there can be no proof that anything that I have published is false. Freedom of the press is supposed to protects the right to obtain and publish information or opinions without government censorship or fear of punishment.
This is a violation of my First Amendment rights of Freedom of the Press, and it wrongfully interferes with my business and profession. I am unable to complete the work that I have done in Missoula by being denied the ability to be on the campus of the University of Montana.
The Missoula County Attorney’s Office claims the TOP limits the ability for me to publish the name “Sean Boushie.” But, the Montana Supreme Court has already ruled in Windsor v. Boushie that blogging cannot be denied by any order of protection, so clearly the TOP is unconstitutional.
The Missoula County Montana Fourth Judicial District Court has been operating in violation of the Constitution with the TOP.
It has been said that most jurists, along with most citizens, agree with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who felt that the Constitution allows some restrictions on speech under certain To illustrate this point, Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” (Schenck v. United States, 249 47, 39 S. 247, 63 L. 470 ). Oliver Wendell Holmes must be turning over in his grave at the thought that today in Montana, denying the publishing of a man’s name, sending an email, and sending a Tweet have been found to be acceptable in spite of the First Amendment. Oliver Wendell Holmes wouldn’t even need an explanation of what an email and a Tweet are.
The effect of this TOP is to say that the media may no longer function in the United States involving a resident of Montana, or someone who commits stalking while in Montana, because any news story that is pursued by the media may be considered stalking. The TOP is a prior restraint on speech, and that is not allowed.
Chief Justice Hughes in DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, 57 S. Ct. 255, 260 (1937) tersely stated the underlying philosophy inherent in the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and press in the following words: "(Imperative) is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political Discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government."
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).
The Temporary Order of Protection violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it abridged the privilege of Freedom of Speech and right to Due Process guaranteed to me as a citizen of the United States.
Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Clark claims the ex parte TOP grants Sean Boushie ownership of my website, but this is a gross violation of due process. According to Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Clark, my property has been taken from me without the required due process.
Due process is protected by both the United States and Montana Constitutions, but the corrupt people in Montana have ignored those rights and legal responsibilities.
The Montana Supreme Court indicated on February 25, 2014 that blogging is a Constitutionally-protected activity when ruling against my efforts to obtain a protective order against Sean Boushie. Yet on June 10, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court may have indicated that blogging is not a Constitutionally-protected activity when ruling against my attempt to get the TOP declared unconstitutional.
So, my Second Amendment rights have been violated.
The Montana Supreme Court ignored the issues that I appealed. That wasn't incompetence; it was intentional screwing. Note that the Montana Supreme Court “only” said I could not post about Sean Boushie on SeanBoushie.com. The Montana Supreme Court did not rule that I could not publish the words “Sean Boushie,” but the Missoula County Attorney’s Office ignored this clear fact in pursuing criminal charges against me in Charges 1, 2 , 4, and 5.
But the Constitution, laws, and case law don't matter when the screwers want to screw you. You're screwed. I’ve been screwed. And I’ve been told that I will lose in court. I will be found guilty of allegedly sending a Tweet that contained the name “Sean Boushie.” I will be found guilty of allegedly publishing the name “Sean Boushie” online three times in an article. I will be found guilty of allegedly publishing the name “Sean Boushie” online one time in an article. I will be found guilty of allegedly sending an email to an attorney with a service copy of a court document. And I will be found guilty of not giving my personal property to Sean Boushie.
Lawless America. That’s where we live.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.