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.

Of they come on behalf of KiwiFarms.net, it's not murder, it's self defense. Nice try though.
It's not though, it literally doesn't fucking matter who they come on behalf of, if they're there to collect, they are legally allowed to collect, and if you kill them, it's murder.

There's no such things as a Debtor's prison in the US or Abscondment of an adult. You're blowing smoke out of your ass.
Actually, in the US, if you fail to pay off court fees and debts, you can be sent to jail. Just a lil fun fact!
 
Here's what the FDCPA covers, notice that it doesn't cover legal debts.

View attachment 2630041
It applies to all merchants and businesses, including attorneys who fall under both categories. Nice try though.




She's faxing joshes threats to the police while simultaneously stating she will literally murder the same police when they show up to collect.

Brilliant.
You're delusional. No one said anything about shooting the police.
 
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to collection agents. Nice try though.
No.

There is no such thing as a "collection agent" in the FDCPA. The act regulates primarily "debt collectors" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)), which is broadly defined as those who collect "debts" owed to another. The statute has a specific definition of "debt" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)):


The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.​

The issue of whether court sanctions and fines are a "debt" for the purposes of the Act was litigated and lost by consumers decades ago. See Gulley v. Markoff & Krasney, 664 F. 3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) and cases cited therein.

So, no, your pretended 1692c "Ceases and Desist" is a nullity. It is, however, very entertaining and I look forward to seeing it discussed in further filings.
 
Like you had to eat when your default win was overturned?
Or when your case was dismissed as the utter garbage it was?
Or when you bragged about how I wasn't dismissed as a defendant, and then I was dismissed as a defendant?
Or when the judge approved you having to pay an appeal bond despite you saying it wouldn't happen.

You seem to eat a lot of crow, what's your favorite way to prepare it? My guess is you turn it into the same kind of rancid slop your family eats daily.

Personally though I wouldn't eat crow, because they're very intelligent. I'd say there's a 100% chance they're smarter than you or any of your retarded niglets.
 
Actually, in the US, if you fail to pay off court fees and debts, you can be sent to jail. Just a lil fun fact!
Wrong. 100% wrong. The only debt someone can be jailed for is child support debt. Nice try at the misinformation campaign.





It's not though, it literally doesn't fucking matter who they come on behalf of, if they're there to collect, they are legally allowed to collect, and if you kill them, it's murder.
It sure does matter. Self defense for those acting on behalf of Stalkers is not murder. Nice try though.

No.

There is no such thing as a "collection agent" in the FDCPA. The act regulates primarily "debt collectors" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)), which is broadly defined as those who collect "debts" owed to another. The statute has a specific definition of "debt" (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)):

The term “debt” means any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.​

The issue of whether court sanctions and fines are a "debt" for the purposes of the Act was litigated and lost by consumers decades ago. See Gulley v. Markoff & Krasney, 664 F. 3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) and cases cited therein.

So, no, your pretended 1692c "Ceases and Desist" is a nullity. It is, however, very entertaining and I look forward to seeing it discussed in further filings.
Then the Cease and Desist letter may be irrelevant. I'll look it up.

Either way, any civilian who says they show up on my property on behalf of Cyberstalking KiwiFarms.net or its owner Joshua Moon will be shot.

But that's hypothetical because Joshua Moon will never get my address
 
@TamarYaelBatYah Which of these guys would you rather fuck? I want to suckle onto Brian Laundrie's head and suck his bald head. Like suction cup my lips to it and suck his soul out.
Don Pedro:
Ddiego.png



Or Brian:
brian-laundrie-ig-pic-pp-1634078617978.jpeg
 
The issue of whether court sanctions and fines are a "debt" for the purposes of the Act was litigated and lost by consumers decades ago. See Gulley v. Markoff & Krasney, 664 F. 3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) and cases cited therein.
Ok, I looked it up. Doesn't include judgments for attorney's fees. So it doesn't apply.
 
Of they come on behalf of KiwiFarms.net, it's not murder, it's self defense. Nice try though.
They come on behalf of the courts. And you will shoot them. Thats murder. Nice try though. (cope)

You're delusional. I never made death threats. Lawsuits are Cyberstalking. Eat crow.
Threatening to shoot people is a death threat. Sorry, I don't rely on government welfare so I can afford food.

Then you can be reported to the FBI for Cyberstalking minors too
If ever I needed to give someone a TLDR as to why you have no fucking clue what you are talking about, this right here is perfect

You're delusional. No one said anything about shooting the police.
You have been threatening to shoot them this entire time. Is Marshall using your account to argue? Is that why you are having trouble keeping up. Because one of you is beating the kids and the other is saying stupid shit online?

It sure does matter. Self defense for those acting on behalf of Stalkers is not murder. Nice try though.
There you go again threatening to shoot police

But that's hypothetical because Joshua Moon will never get my address
Wrong again. Damn not even in internet postings do you get something right
 
It sure does matter. Self defense for those acting on behalf of Stalkers is not murder. Nice try though.
You can't kill a debt collector, Melinda. It doesn't matter who the fuck they're collecting for, if you are aware that they're collecting for Josh and you kill them, things aren't going to end well for you.
Wrong. 100% wrong. The only debt someone can be jailed for is child support debt. Nice try at the misinformation campaign.
Wrong, actually, someone can be jailed for not only avoiding child support, but also court fees and federal taxes.
 
You can't kill a debt collector, Melinda. It doesn't matter who the fuck they're collecting for, if you are aware that they're collecting for Josh and you kill them, things aren't going to end well for you.
Wouldn't it be fun if she ended up in jail with Chris Chan, because they're both "female"?
 
Wrong. 100% wrong. The only debt someone can be jailed for is child support debt. Nice try at the misinformation campaign.






It sure does matter. Self defense for those acting on behalf of Stalkers is not murder. Nice try though.


Then the Cease and Desist letter may be irrelevant. I'll look it up.

Either way, any civilian who says they show up on my property on behalf of Cyberstalking KiwiFarms.net or its owner Joshua Moon will be shot.

But that's hypothetical because Joshua Moon will never get my address
Self defense only occurs when someone is at risk of grievous bodily injury or death. Someone showing up at your home to collect property in order to pay a debt that a court has already certified that you owe would not by definition be a physicial threat to you at all. It would be a threat to property that no longer belonged to you. Technically, the person collecting the property wouldn't even be a threat to the property - you would be the person posing a threat to Josh's property.
 
18 USC 2261A

Using a computer to Cyberstalk

(2)with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

(A)
places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or
(B)
causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

OR IN OTHER WORDS KIWIFARMS.NET IS A CYBERSTALKING WEBSITE BECAUSE IT PUTS ITS VICTIMS UNDER SURVEILLANCE BY USE OF COMPUTERS IN ORDER TO INTIMIDATE, HARASS AND CAUSE DISTRESS TO ITS VICTIMS. YOU EVEN MAKE DEATH THREATS TOP WHICH I HAVE DOCUMENTED.

EAT SHIT



Keep making threats, I'm faxing it over to the Police.
Smelly Melly, I've been employed (something you will never know) as an agent for Capital One as a collections supervisor and had to pass certifiction (something you will never know) under the FDCPA and frankly know alot more about the fair debt collections act then....well...YOU and can clearly say,

You are fucked 9 ways from Sunday should Null win a judgement for expenses against your pauper ass. In fact, you would be better off offering Jersh free access to your mountain jew poop chute instead of the costs he could and should be taking out of your reeking ass.

That's all i have to say. Any more arguement in legalese will just go over your head and under your feet. Prepare to offer those cheeks, sweetums!
 
Back