Source: http://freedom-4you.blogspot.com/2015/
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 06:40:05
Document Index: 666564741

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 45', '§ 17', '§ 4', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40']

Freedom-4You: 2015
St.Paul,MN News
BillWindsorFreeSpeechCorruptCourtsreNear vs.MN
Sharon Anderson Bill be careful, in some of my issues eitherwww.lawlessamerica.com and or www.sharon4council.blogspot.com comes up Spam cc Jon Roland Rodney Stich Carol D. Berg MacDonald For JusticeDon Mashak Tyler Technologies, Inc. Find the Webmaster for the 9th Circuit ccCongressman Bob Goodlatte Congressman Darrell E. Issa Donald J. TrumpCarlyn Fioriona et al
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3217522675479530355#editor/target=post;postID=1247308215106384657
Near vs. Minnesota Free Speech
Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson | The Oyez Project at IIT ...
www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1929/1929_91/
Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials ...
Near v. Minnesota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting ...
‎Background of the case - ‎The Court's decision - ‎Subsequent developments
Near v. Minnesota :: 283 U.S. 697 (1931) :: Justia U.S. ...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/.../case.html
Near v. Minnesota. No. 91. Argued January 30, 1931. Decided June 1, 1931. 283 U.S. 697. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. Syllabus.
www.law.cornell.edu/.../USSC_CR_0283_069...
Near v. Minnesota (No. 91). Argued: January 30, 1931. Decided: June 1, 1931 ... A Minnesota statute declares that one who engages "in the business of ...
Near v. Minnesota | Casebriefs
www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/...law.../near-v-minnesota-3/
View this case and other resources at: Citation. 283 U.S. 697,51 S. Ct. 625,75 L. Ed. 1357,1931 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. A Minnesota law that.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/.../near-v-minnesota-...
This Landmark Supreme Court Cases and the Constitution eLesson focuses on the 1931 Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota. In this landmark freedom of ...
The case of Near v. Minnesota begins with a man named J.M. Near. This man was a resident of the state of Minnesota who published a newspaper called “The ...
www.class.uh.edu/comm/.../nearvsminnesota.html
Minnesota/A History The Court and Near Why Near is Important Robert R. McCormick.Near v. Minnesota/A History This information is taken from Minnesota Rag ...
Near v. Minnesota - Legal Dictionary - The Free Dictionary
Near v. Minnesota. Freedom of the Press is a bedrock constitutional principle. However, the presumption that the press cannot be restrained from publishing ...
Near v. Minnesota, 683 U.S. 697 (1931) | JEM First ...
firstamendment.cci.utk.edu/content/near-v-minnesota-683-us-697-1931
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). Issue: Prior restraint (pre-publication censorship by government). With good reason, prior restraint is called the most ...
Searches related to near vs minnesota
new york times vs united states
new york times vs us
near vs minnesota significance
roth vs us
near vs minnesota ap gov
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was ... Wikipedia
End date: June 1, 1931
New York Times Co. v. United...
ement and corrupt judges want to screw you
Wednesday, 16 September 2015 02:00
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'm a screwee...
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.
Attorney Disohnesty, Misconduct, and Corruption News Reports
Judicial Abuse, Dishonesty, and Corruption News Reports
Law Enforcement Abuse, Dishonesty and Corruption News Reports
Financial - Bankruptcy
Guardianship - Elder Abuse
Officials - Appointed
Officials - Elected
Report Dishonesty and Corruption
Search Corruption Reports
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.
Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240, 312 Mont. 1, 58 P.3d 128, for the proposition that Montana's constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Assembly (Art. II, Section 6) Freedom of Speech is a fantasy in America when corrupt law enforcement and corrupt judges want to screw you.
Dorwart v. Caraway, 2002 MT 240, 312 Mont. 1, 58 P.3d 128, for the proposition that Montana's constitutional guarantees of Freedom of Assembly (Art. II, Section 6)
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 ofSean 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 TOP violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press. The Fourteenth Amendment proscribed the various states from abridging freedom of speech and press as mandated by the First Amendment. Montana also has a strong freedom of speech clause in the Montana Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7. It provides: “Section 7. FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION, AND PRESS. No law 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.]
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 inWindsor 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 [1919]). 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.
The Montana Supreme Court has said this: “…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).)
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 news media itself bears the greater responsibility, even more than the courts, to preserve the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and press. Self discipline on the part of the news media, and it alone, can give purity of meaning to the First Amendment and justification for its literal interpretation and application. (Elmer E. Whitmore v. Kansas City Star, 499 S.W.2d 45, 07/23/73.)
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 (quotingBose 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 Fourteenth Amendment provides “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.”
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.
Montana Code Annotated Title 40 Chapter 15 is unconstitutional because “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….”
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.
Montana Constitution Section 17 - Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. “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).)
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.
The Montana Supreme Court has actually issued an Opinion in which they show that in Montana, Freedom of Speech does not exist; prior restraint of speech is allowed; the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm is invalid; and due process is not a right. The Montana Supreme Court wrote this in its Opinion:
“Section 40-15-201, MCA, provides a process by which victims of offenses, including stalking, may obtain relief from the perpetrators. All of the conditions that Windsor challenges are permitted by the statute. The condition barring Windsor from harming or threatening to harm Boushie’s wife is authorized by § 40-15-201(2)(a), MCA. The condition barring Windsor from harassing or otherwise contacting Boushie’s wife or University of Montana staff is authorized by § 40-15-201(2)(b), MCA. The condition preventing Windsor from coming within 1500 feet of Boushie’s residence, wife or place of employment is permitted by § 40-15-201(2)(d), MCA. The condition barring Windsor from possessing a certain firearm is within what is contemplated by § 40-15-201(2)(j), MCA. 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, under the circumstances. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the TOP.”
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.
Photo copyright inforrm.wordpress.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 isbill@billwindsor.com. 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.
Posted by Sharon Anderson at 9:21 AM No comments: