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.

It does say status active, so it appears to be still open for whatever reason. I just thought it was odd that he's only just now made himself aware of her previous activities, to the point of scrambling for an additional extension of time because the motion is almost due. Vaguely wondering now if the current court might have been less likely to continue indulging her freakish ongoing appeals and motions if this had been brought up in a prior motion.
 
You sure it wasn't dismissed?

Edit: nvm, @Kosher Salt answered
It appears that the circuit court simply never did anything, other than giving her IFP status to file it.

1633625890458.png

I'm wondering if they find such complete lack of merit that it's not even worth writing an opinion for, opting to instead let it languish until at some point it's eventually just closed due to the court's inactivity.
 
Fun. But how is it that Null's lawyer was unaware, this whole time, of previous failed litigation attempts by Melinda on other people? In a case like this, wouldn't you do a search to back up your assertions that she's just a vexatious crap?

Also, I just searched for her name in the Buchanan County Circuit Court (as opposed to the District court case referenced above) and she has an active pro se case against the same defendant, case number CL18000750-00. She's IFP, of course, but there doesn't seem to be any activity since three years ago. Maybe Hardin should ask for those records too?
Were we aware of them? And we're internet autists.

It's generally considered bad form to attack your oponent as a vexatious litiant, until they clearly show themselves to be so in your case. And then you can pull it out. Mel has crossed the threshold.

It also sounds like Mel is still deluded enough to insist she will get, better yet deserves, a big payout from this.

edit, Defendant facing Melinda insanity would appear to be Appalachian Rental Solutions. An Apartment Rental Agency in Buchanan County Virginia. 28360 Riverside Drive, Grundy VA 24614.

Landlord/Tenant dispute or eviction? Going back prior to 2018? It’s pretty obvious anybody that comes in contact with Melinda ends up in litigation. The crazy runs deep.
 
Last edited:
It's generally considered bad form to attack your oponent as a vexatious litiant, until they clearly show themselves to be so in your case. And then you can pull it out. Mel has crossed the threshold.
She stated multiple times that her goal isn't seeking justice \ winning the case and that this thread does not distress her (therefore her claims of emotional distress are false and she lied in her filing). I think that's enough to label her as a vexatious litigant.
 
She stated multiple times that her goal isn't seeking justice \ winning the case and that this thread does not distress her (therefore her claims of emotional distress are false and she lied in her filing). I think that's enough to label her as a vexatious litigant.
That way be an indication of bad faith. Assuming you could validate and prove any such statements. Vexatious a litigant is a much higher threshold. Which Melinda actually reaches. The 6 attempts to sue Null over what is unquestionably the same matter, or trivially different matters, escalated and shopped from court to court and even appealed to the Supreme Court, all while accruing no costs to themselves via in forma pauperis, is a clear Vexatious Litigant.
 
I don't think it's too likely to get a second extension granted.. If Hardin's rationale is "I found out about this other case today", the court could simply say it was his fault for not doing his research earlier. That depends on how lenient courts are in relation to extensions.
 
I don't think it's too likely to get a second extension granted.. If Hardin's rationale is "I found out about this other case today", the court could simply say it was his fault for not doing his research earlier. That depends on how lenient courts are in relation to extensions.
I disagree. His rationale is that despite all the work he has done, there is still fuck ton of her meritless lawsuits left to go over (one of which is the one he recently found), all of which help to show that she is quite literally a bad faith litigant. I do think it will be granted, although his chances are a bit lower given he already asked once before for this motion
 
I don't think it's too likely to get a second extension granted.. If Hardin's rationale is "I found out about this other case today", the court could simply say it was his fault for not doing his research earlier. That depends on how lenient courts are in relation to extensions.
If I've learned anything from my three years watching court cases, it's that everybody is always asking for more time - and getting it. Things aren't as tight and urgent IRL as they are in an episode of Law and Order. The court system is intended to be geared toward reaching justice based on the facts of a case, rather than through strict adherence to a bunch of arbitrary rules and deadlines. The rules allow for things like extensions on deadlines, and so unless there was evidence that Josh was abusing the legal process, the Court is going to lean toward allowing him the time he needs to present his case.
 
I don't think it's too likely to get a second extension granted.. If Hardin's rationale is "I found out about this other case today", the court could simply say it was his fault for not doing his research earlier. That depends on how lenient courts are in relation to extensions.
He asked for a very limited extension of time, well before his deadline is up, to accomodate the speed of another court clerk and the post office. It's not an unreasonable request. He didn't ask for a month. He asked for 9 days. At this point the circuit judge is also likely pissed at and curious about Mel.

Where this may hurt Hardin is with the appeals court. He just requested an extension there to avoid fighting the same case in 2 courts at once due to Mel's malfeasance. With this new delay he's not going to have the circuit courts final judgement and appeal bond amounts in hand when he files his final arguments to the appeals court. And the appeals court signalled no further delays. It's probably a minor concern as the Appeals court will in all liklihood toss Mel's current appeal as a matter still before the lower court and not yet with the appeals courts jurisdiction.
 
Vexatious a litigant is a much higher threshold. Which Melinda actually reaches.
As I understand the term, it means using the legal system to harass someone - so by definition it must be done in bad faith and repeatedly. Both apply here.

I disagree. His rationale is that despite all the work he has done, there is still fuck ton of her meritless lawsuits left to go over (one of which is the one he recently found), all of which help to show that she is quite literally a bad faith litigant.
Isn't it like Hardin is sitting on a nuclear arsenal and asking for time to secure one more warhead?

I have to say for the first time ever I don't want @TamarYaelBatYah to kill herself.
Told you, we're in for a treat if she stays alive.
 
I don't think it's too likely to get a second extension granted.. If Hardin's rationale is "I found out about this other case today", the court could simply say it was his fault for not doing his research earlier. That depends on how lenient courts are in relation to extensions.
An unpublished, not even reported state case that turns out to be relevant is not the kind of case law thing that due diligence would necessarily uncover, and 9 days is nothing.
 
Motion to Seal by Melinda. She complaints that mean Kiwis are Cyberstalking her because the Court of Appeals includes her envelopes in her filings

image-000001.png
image-000002.png
image-000003.png
image-000004.png
image-000005.png

Isn't it like Hardin is sitting on a nuclear arsenal and asking for time to secure one more warhead?
It's like Rasputin. You poison the wine, but prepare to shoot him and then drown him just in case the previous two weren't enough.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Motion to Seal by Melinda. She complaints that mean Kiwis are Cyberstalking her because the Court of Appeals includes her envelopes in her filings

Images to come soon



It's like Rasputin. You poison the wine, but prepare to shoot him and then drown him just in case the previous two weren't enough.
That’s actually an almost polite and reasonable request. I wonder who she got to write it?
 
Back