Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

So legal Kiwis since this is essentially over can Null possibly have her branded as vextious litigant since she is using the court in bad faith through pro se litigation, and can he file for any possible legal fees and or damages due to this being lawsuit being one of her many frivolous lawsuits against Null?
 
Last edited:
So legal Kiwis once the appeal gets struck down and Null possibly motion to have her branded as a vextious litigant or any possible legal fees and or damages due to this being so frivolous?
Can you rewrite that in English, please?
 
So legal Kiwis since this is essentially over can Null possibly have her branded as vextious litigant since she is using the court in bad faith through pro se litigation, and can he file for any possible legal fees and or damages due to this being lawsuit being one of her many frivolous lawsuits against Null?
Look back and reread the last 10 pages or so. This has been answered ad infinitum. But, quick answer:
1. She is unlikely to be declared vexatious litigant yet
2. Why are you on this thread, asking questions about the lawsuit, without even having read the motions in said lawsuit? I suggest looking over document 63, or 64 for your answer. You can find them both here, and in places like Courtlistener.
 
The funniest solution is still Ethan Ralph as the debt collector. It also creates the most marketable content for both parties. Is he amenable to your proposal of a 50/50 split?
That 5'1 pussy would send Mantsu to the door while he hides behind a corner like last time, he is wholly unfit for the job (or any other, really). Still, Belligerent Whitetrash Debt Collection Agency needs to be a thing and it's a terrible shame it isn't already.
 
If that's the case, then why the clerk is flipping their shit over a minor technicality? Are they an autist who expect perfection in motion text? Just some low-level bureaucrat powertripping? Or God forbid someone sympathetic to Melinda?
Have you ever met one? And you're asking if they're autistic? And no, the clerk has no sympathy for anyone. The clerk is merely autistic.
 
Glad to see that while I was gone nothing has really changed with the case. Would be nice to read about Melinda chimping out that she has to pay a bond to go through with appeals though.
 
I don't have a way of dealing with it. I'm going to have to just press for damages and pay someone to collect at a loss.
Is there any chance of getting the court to apply a pre-filing injunction against her, a la Dora Adkins?
 
Null's latest filing (yesterday) appears to be exactly that.
Oh, nice! I'm just 20 minutes into today's Mad at the Internet, Josh mentioned Virginia not having a vexatious litigant rule and I was thinking about this.
 
Oh, nice! I'm just 20 minutes into today's Mad at the Internet, Josh mentioned Virginia not having a vexatious litigant rule and I was thinking about this.
It does via caselaw, though, such as Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir.1977) or Tucker, Jr. v. Sergeant SEIBER 17 F.3d 1434 (4th Cir. 1994) which sets out clear rules to follow when trying to stop vexatious litigation via things like prefilling injuctions. Josh is right in the sense that VA has no vexatious litigant statute, although courts (federal and not) long held (in VA and outside) that they had the power to declare vexatious litigation, and stop it.
Null's latest filing (yesterday) appears to be exactly that.
I disagree. You are correct in saying it looks like a prefiling injuction, but it really isn't. For one, Null is only asking the court to make Mel obey the rules of app procedure. For two, Null only wanted it to apply to notices of appeal, nothing else was mentioned. To me it seems like nothing else than a request to the court to enforce it's own orders.
Is there any chance of getting the court to apply a pre-filing injunction against her, a la Dora Adkins?
It is possible, yes. I don't think it's likely, though.
 
@Useful_Mistake since you appear to be very smart, will the judge be pissed off that the clerk tried to be clever by sidestepping the judge's ruling over a minor technicality (the not saying revoke part)?
Judges tend to not like their authority be stepped on, and this judge is a 60 year old woman, so, yeah, I'm gonna say she's not gonna be happy one bit.
 
Back