- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
Germany may have failed twice, but the HRE will make a comeback!.Picture already in thread, just before the newest document madness. I don't want to paste it again and distract from the maps of 20th-century Europe.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Germany may have failed twice, but the HRE will make a comeback!.Picture already in thread, just before the newest document madness. I don't want to paste it again and distract from the maps of 20th-century Europe.
Nah. What Melly's on is streight up teeth-grinding. rage-fuelling. endless amounts of useless wheel-spinning energy providing Mountain Methamphetamine.Melinda seemed have had some damn fine cocaine when she wrote up that bit of insanity.
Hopefully Rackets can be entertaining tonight and not busting off to answer Superchats every goddamn 30 seconds.Ah, so it got the Hungarian treatment then. I guess I need to brush up on my post WW2 history.
Edit: nick confirmed to be covering Mel stuff in his livestream as well as promoting Ridge wallets:
View attachment 2638148
View attachment 2638150
If only there wasn't the law of the land in the way, I would totally win my lawsuit - MelindaIn their minds they are right and those evil corrupt lawyers are the only obstacle between them and their sweet victory.
Lithuania was not very big in the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth. That why they didn't get much land post WW1 either.So have their brothers, the Lithuanians (who got cucked and did not get any land post ww2)
I wasn't speaking about Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.Lithuania was not very big in the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.
She's retarded. Also, I think these past few filings were less "relitigation" and more "Hardin is a meannie poopy head, please tell meanie to no do mean, Court, please!"So I'm a little bit tired and this is a lot of crazy reading, but why is she re-litigating the settled issues rather than discussion the application for costs?
She does this too. Her main argument comes down to "I'm poor, Josh's mean, he deserves nothing".discussion the application for costs?
I like the part where she went "Moon runs a mean, sadistic site, so he should get no money, because the site is mean"She does this too. Her main argument comes down to "I'm poor, Josh's mean, he deserves nothing".
Best guess is that she is convinced that the court is going to agree that the attorney fee shouldn't be paid because Moon's website is big meanie to her despite 6+ years showing her that the court doesn't agree with her on anything she saysSo I'm a little bit tired and this is a lot of crazy reading, but why is she re-litigating the settled issues rather than discussion the application for costs?
The third picture in the results, at least for me, jumped out like a cheap haunted-house scare. It's the dynamic duo together -- the one with the redlines on Marshy's hat. Melly is leaning in to Marshy and grabbing him around the waist for dear life, as though she were dressed up for Halloween as the embodiment of the Overly Attached Girlfriend meme. (I mean, except that she isn't looking at him even a little bit. She's eyefucking herself in the camera lens.) Meanwhile, Marshy's posture is ramrod straight, and his "smile" can only be described as a strained rictus. He's not looking at her either -- couple goals? He's looking for the nearest exit; his meth pipe; and/or one word out of her mouth so he can
Yeah, but if I recall correctly, that was her original "argument" too. Maybe version 1.0 had less "Hardin is a meanie" and more "Null is a meanie."She's exceptional. Also, I think these past few filings were less "relitigation" and more "Hardin is a meannie poopy head, please tell meanie to no do mean, Court, please!"
Her original argument was more or less "thread exist. Much bad. Kiwi say mean thing. Make many angry me. Phone exist. Kiwi do call phone. Null help phone. Big mean! Give money! Null also do much constitutional violate!"Yeah, but if I recall correctly, that was her original "argument" too. Maybe version 1.0 had less "Hardin is a meanie" and more "Null is a meanie."
I don't think any of the 5 prior courts could figure out what her original arguments were either. Because she is a lunatic.Her original argument was more or less "thread exist. Much bad. Kiwi say mean thing. Make many angry me. Phone exist. Kiwi do call phone. Null help phone. Big mean! Give money! Null also do much constitutional violate!"
99% of her original arguments have been litigated in the past, so I guess you are correct.
I'm pretty sure they figured them out, called them nonsensical and dismissed those arguments.I don't think any of the 5 prior courts could figure out what her original arguments were either. Because she is a lunatic.
I don't think they had to actually figure them out to realize and rule they were nonsensical.I'm pretty sure they figured them out, called them nonsensical and dismissed those arguments.
I thought they were dismissed because she failed to state a claim aka they couldn't understand anything she was sayingI'm pretty sure they figured them out, called them nonsensical and dismissed those arguments.
Failure to state a claim does not mean that the court does not understand your argument. It means that your argument has no basis under the law, and thus court is unable to provide remedy. That being said, sometimes the court can not understand your argument. Like Judge Jones put it in one of Mel's suits (quoting another decision):I thought they were dismissed because she failed to state a claim aka they couldn't understand anything she was saying