When you do an analysis video, a response video, or the like, please script it. It's better quality for everyone.
>It took me 2 hours to debunk your misinformation
His talk about you and your lawsuit is longer than that. You basically admit to not fully watching his video. Also how are you gonna fit all that 2 hours worth of knowledge in a 5 minute video?
>Nick you are a slanderer because you continue to peddle the idea that I don't pay taxes
She doesn't even assert that she does, she just goes on to claim Nick is an "evil soul"
So, I guess 1 point for Nick.
She then goes on to:
1. Misrepresent Nick's words (ironic)
2. Switch from a non-subjective point (law) to subjectivity (Torah) to try to debunk his non-subjective point about how law works.
So far, no facts. Point for Nick. So far we are 38% in her video, and there was not a single fact presented to counter his arguments.
Just like in the beginning she continues her ad hominem attacks on Nick.
She didn't even prepare a way to use her camera the way she likes. She makes a point of that in the video. That's just how """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""prepared""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" she is.
2:32 Melinda, without providing any source for her claims (ironic), claims that Nick claimed that her lawsuit was going to be dismissed over the lack of "clerks logo". Since she couldn't bother to provide a factual source, I'm going to disregard her claim. I do recall, however, Nick mentioning many different reasons for why her case will be dismissed, such as failure to state a claim (which is what happened). If she is okay with using subjective arguments (memory), I will oblige and use it myself.
>You continue to peddle the idea that Joshua Moon wasn't served properly.
As per the court, there is much doubt whatever or not he was served properly, and evidence suggests that he hasn't been (docket 56)
Point for Nick. Again, I must stress that she has yet to source anything she has claimed.
>You continue to peddle the idea that pro se litigants need attorneys
Well, with your record, I can see that you do. A lawyer is going to be better than a pro se litigant if only because a lawyer will have more legal knowledge.
Point for Nick, I suppose. Still no facts. We're 46% in.
From 46%-61% she attacks Nick's presumed intentions, and whines about him. Still no facts.
>You continue to peddle misinformation about magistrate judges
She claims that Nick is wrong (about what exactly she isn't clear) and says to read rule 73 (where it should be found (local, frcp, frap, etc she does not make clear). I'll assume, arguendo, she means frcp. She is wrong about it as I have shown
here and
here. She doesn't elaborate, so I'll have to assume her thoughts about the rule did not change from when she explained them here.
She then cites 28 U.S. Code § 636 as some sort of gotcha and does not elaborate. I'm going to assume her opinion hasn't changed. She is wrong for the reasons Nick explained in his response to Marshall's response to Nick's response to Marshall's response to Nick's comments. Anyway, you can read some analysis us fellow kiwis did
here as to why she is wrong. If she keeps talking about consent, it's defeated by (b) (1) (A)
>recommendation ain't a order
Indeed, although they can make orders too. See, for example, (b) (1) (A) of her own citation. Their recommendations also carry great power, for failing to object to them waives your rights in appeals. See, for example, United States v. Edward Lester Schronce, Jr., 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
>They can't sign an order unless both parties have consented.
Wrong. See 28 U.S. Code § 636 (b) (1) (A). What she is talking, in regards to consent, applies only to trial. As uscourts.gov points out, "
In civil cases, they will hear pre trial motions, conduct settlement and pre trial conferences, and may, on assignment, handle dispositive motions and, with the consent of the parties, may conduct the trial." I point out this quote, because Mel does not seem to understand the words in the statute.
From 66%-76% she attacks Nick's perceived motives (strawman)
Ironically she accuses him of reading about "color of law" from wikipedia, when Marshall got his version of badly-read definition from literally the Wikipedia for legal terms.
>Color of law is anytime somebody acting under government authority tries to do a course of conduct that has no legal basis
I wonder if she realizes that Hardin, Nick, Null, are not acting under "government authority". As towards her definition, it is, of course incorrect. Color of law is nothing more than being empowered by law. What she is talking about is Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law (i.e. Government or its arm thereof willfully taking away your rights". See 18 U.S. Code § 242, 42 U.S. Code § 1983
We are 79% in.
>It includes lawyers that ask the court to do something that has no foundation in law
Incorrect. They are not acting under the color of law. See, Anthony Marcantoni v. Frederick Bealefeld, 18-6340 (4th Cir. 201
"In addition, private attorneys do not act under color of state law and a [Civil action for deprivation of rights]
may not be maintained against an attorney based on his representation", Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155 (4th Cir. 1980), Johnson v. Harris, 483 F. Supp. 710 (D. Maryland 1980), Shelton v. Randolph, 373 F. Supp. 448 (W.D. Va. 1974) "Private attorneys do not act "under color of state law" "
Other Courts have all agreed with this. See Thompson v. Zirkle, 2:07-CV-227 PS (N.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2007), Victor Frank Szijarto v. Charles F. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1972), etc.
>we've seen plenty of that in this case
Citation?
>Nick Rekieta you try to skip over pleadings to try to dupe people
Unsourced ad hominem.
>Why do you skip pleadings [and] memorandums of law?
You haven't shown that he has. Even if he did, the burden is on you to prove your claim. But, lets assume he does. Does he skip only your pleadings? That's important. Or does he skip all recent replies from both sides?
>which prove what I'm saying
I'll humbly suggest that my analysis over your proof always seems to show you to be horribly wrong.
>Magistrate signing an order without my consent is a color of law
Yes, but not for the reasons you think it is. The law empowers him to do it, nothing illegal was done.
>CPS showing up at your door without a warrant, eeeeee
I'm gonna assume that was also supposed to be "color of law". I'll suggest you learn the difference between it and Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law
86% in.
86%-97% is basically "why nick make fun of me?" + straw mans.
In regards to lexus, it has many advantages that "google scholar" does not.
97%-98% "Ree misinformation"
>I will make a video when I have time
She just admitted she neglected her children to make this vid, lol.
