While Melinda is certainly correct that an order granting the appeal bond was entered, she is incorrect that Hardin seeks to modify said order. He asks the court to simply set his preferred, and fact based amount, something the court would have to do anyway for the bond to have any value.
For someone complaining about Hardin's alleged lack of citations, Melinda provides none herself. As is, I can assume she has no citations, because this is incorrect.
She then whines some more about how she totally is not in bad faith and appeal bond is like totally bad, guys. As is, I've addressed this, at least, three other times in my previous analyses, and as such won't bother repeating myself.
The amount of time put into the research is irrelevant. Only the argument itself is. In most cases you can only appeal "final orders" Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island, (4th Cir. 2018 ). A final order, is an order which removes parties from the current case. An appeal bond, evidently, is not that.
Mel makes a very fine strawman to attack. Mayhaps next time cite his actual words?
She then spends three pages attacking the strawman she made.
Poor people can be made to pay appeal bonds too. See Rule 7, 24 of FRAP, or Patterson v. Warner, 371 F. Supp. 1362 (S.D.W. Va 1972)
She then says "appeal bond invalid because it does not conform with rules" all of which she fails to mention and cite.
She then again makes another strawman, that she gleefully attacks. It would help if she actually read the words Hardin wrote, instead of making assumptions about what he wrote. This goes on for 2 pages.
Irrelevant. Even if true, you are allowed to fundraise your legal defenses, and still receive things like attorney's fees. See, for example, Tidewater Patent Development Co. v. Kitchen, 421 F.2d 680 (4th Cir. 1970), ABC, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24, Joint Venture, 67 F. Supp. 2d 558 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
She then goes on to say "Well if he only did what I wanted, we wouldn't be here, and because I think his motions are bad, that means he was lying to the court". Needless to say, this is insane. She then absurdly attacked him for not responding to claims she never even sued him for.
She then, again, makes another strawman (or shows her poor ability to read). In specific she claims Null is seeking an award of attorney's fees via the bond, when he clearly stated that he can neither do that, nor wishes to.
She attacks that strawman for another 2 pages
Hardin's valid counter:
Person with a history of lying and not providing facts, accuses the other party of the same.
She then goes on to accidently explain why Hardin is correct
Countered here:
Edit: Her citations in her war are nonsensical. She cites some law about compensation for judges, but not only is it not relevant, it also does not have a section 4 that she cites. It simply does not exist. Likewise her "local rule 73" citation is irrelevant. Truly a beauty of absurdity
and
here, and
here. Oh, and
here.
Doc 3:
It is essentially a rehash of her complaints presented in opposition to Hardin's motion for more time, "I am
Russ Melinda just let me explain", reeing about Hardin being mean, lack of understanding of concepts such as relevance, and in her few lines about sanctions, accusations (unsupported) about Hardin's alleged lies to the court.
There is not a single part of this I feel is worth addressing in greater detail.
so hard on the people who have to deal with this on the court's end. No wonder it takes her one and a half of an hour to do what professional does in 12 mintes when it comes down to research. Especially love the bits where she says Null shouldn't be awarded anything because he raises funds for his legal bills, Hardin is a misogynist and judge is a big meanie. I can just hear her hammering that keyboard furiously as her anger grows.
. A final order, is an order which removes parties from the current case. An appeal bond, evidently, is not that.
