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.

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

Considering I've produced enough milk to feed two children on top of my own
If I was still lactating it would be a sign things were wrong.

@Baby Yoda would like to know your location

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

She also talked about 8chan as well as talking about his alleged promotion of pedophilia (which he has in actually completely condemned). The relevance of any of this is non-existent to this case.

That's Melinda following Ashley's advice. I must admit, I did not expect her to follow advice given by someone who's clearly intellectually deficient and mentally unstable but here we are.
It's a shame I don't leak private correspondence because I would love to show Melinda what Ashley says about her and what she shows us about their interactions.

 

[ConSluttant]

@Baby Yoda would like to know your location

He can call me at 867-5309.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

He can call me at 867-5309.

 

[talk talk talk]

I would also recommend Black's Law Dictionary, not sure what Edition it's at now though.

Nobody except loons uses Black's. It's a useful reference in the background, but so many nut bars cite it that citing it is kind of a tell of being a nut bar.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

Nobody except loons uses Black's. It's a useful reference in the background, but so many nut bars cite it that citing it is kind of a tell of being a nut bar.

Which makes it perfect for Melinda

 

[LoverofPi]

That's Melinda following Ashley's advice. I must admit, I did not expect her to follow advice given by someone who's clearly intellectually deficient and mentally unstable but here we are.
It's a shame I don't leak private correspondence because I would love to show Melinda what Ashley says about her and what she shows us about their interactions.

Oooh, can we guess and you can tell us how close we are? I'm sure it's nothing flattering.

 

[Forgotten Snack Cake]

That's Melinda following Ashley's advice. I must admit, I did not expect her to follow advice given by someone who's clearly intellectually deficient and mentally unstable but here we are.
It's a shame I don't leak private correspondence because I would love to show Melinda what Ashley says about her and what she shows us about their interactions.

I’m just waiting for the “Ashley lusts after Marshall” saga since Melinda is so paranoid she’s accused practically every female in thread of doing so. Even when said posters were clearly being sarcastic- Oh wait. I forgot Melinda thinks domestic rape is a bonus point for a righteous man.

 

[talk talk talk]

Because the Rittenhouse verdict has me feeling beneficent, here's another free tip for @TamarYaelBatYah .

Use Words & Phrases instead of Black's Law Dictionary.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Nobody except loons uses Black's. It's a useful reference in the background, but so many nut bars cite it that citing it is kind of a tell of being a nut bar.

I just have it for reference when writing so I know what terms to use instead of writing gibberish (like Melinda)

Because the Rittenhouse verdict has me feeling beneficent, here's another free tip for @TamarYaelBatYah .

Use Words & Phrases instead of Black's Law Dictionary.

You mean the Legally Defined book right? I have that somewhere. Should work on organizing my stuff one day.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Oooh, can we guess and you can tell us how.lose we are? I'm sure it's nothing flattering.

If I was to sum it up I'd say: barely contained contempt for Mel with occasional outbursts insults and attempts to extort information about Mel and Marshall mistreating the kids.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Spoiler: Analysis of her informal reply brief (part 1)

Incorrect. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24 (3) (A) states that a party who has been granted IFP status in the district court, cannot proceed up to the appeals with IFP if the district court certifies the appeal is not taken in good faith.

The court did certify that.


Your IFP status, is therefore revoked.



Nope:
1. The court granted the motion for appeal bond


2. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 says the court can do that






Incorrect. The consent is only required in trials. They can do pre trial stuff without consent (this case never reached trial). See United States v. Edward Lester Schronce, Jr., 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008 ), 28 U.S. Code § 636, us.gov article about Magistrate Judges. Further, arguendo, even if what Mel said was true, Magistrate Judges are not constrained by the wording of the Magistrate Act and can go beyond it with a permission of a judge. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2008 ).



Rule 73 draws it's power from 28 U.S. Code § 636 (and a FRCP rule about trials), which states that consent is only required for pre-trial matters.


This argument fails for the same reason her arguments failed about the law from which this rule draws power.



Both apply only to trials, FRCP 73 literally titled "Trial by Consent"




There has been no trial, and likewise the Magistrate did not participate or act in this non-existent trial. Her argument, repeated ad nauseam, once again, fails.




Incorrect.



A judgement by "competent tribunal" that is "according to those rules and principles which have been established by our jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights." (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878 )) is the definition of due process. You have received due process. You simply do not like the outcome. Rules were followed. Tough luck.



When talking about "Void Judgment" the court specifically mentioned that the "void" talked about the result, not how it came about. Where Mel argues that the alleged violation of rules create the void judgment, her citation says otherwise. The court specifically mentioned that a "erroneous" (wrong or incorrect) judgment does not make it a "void judgment"



Melinda, once again, showed she is incapable of basic reading.


1. The case is 9th circuit, not 4th
2. The context is judge issuing an order that went against law (didn't happen here)
3. Orders without authority are still valid, unless overturned by the appellate or supreme court. Not believing in the order's validity, does not remove any power it may hold unless overturned, and "I don't believe its valid" is not a good argument to the appeals court, specifically when it is based on horrible read of the law.



1. It does not have to immediately set the amount, and you have yet to prove that it must have.
2. Even if we accept, arguendo, that Hardin's "set appeal bond amount" motion was in violation of FRCP 15(d) (which is not true), it has no bearing on the appeal bond order, and suggesting it does is ludicrous.
3. The Appeal Bond amount was not set, and you agree, therefore it cannot default to 0, and you have not proven that it can.
4. Even if we agree this is all true (I disagree), this does not prove that it was facially defective, only that you would have paid the 0$ amount.
5. As pointed out in point 4, her arguments are ludicrous and contradictory.




I'm afraid I don't follow her argument. Appeal bond is invalid because it did not say that Null could then "motion to enforce it"? But it is already enforced.

The citation here is weird, because that paragraph (in the cited case) talks about court deciding to dismiss bad complains on its own, and congratulates the practice.

While irrelevant to the matter of the appeal bond, if anything this citation is harmful to her.



And, indeed that is what happened (see docket 79)







It is clear then, that Mel failed to read the order correctly.


"Moon demands that the "illegally crafted order" be enforced and supported by applicable law".
So, Null wants legal things to be legal? This is bad why?
Also, she still hasn't learnt what color of law means.




Citation needed for this alleged conspiracy.

That being said, drafting orders and having a judge "just sign it" is perfectly legal and often practiced. For example, Western District of Virginia offers a guide as to how to make such proposed orders. Furthermore in In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases), 811 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1987) "Robins' attorneys...present[ed] a proposed order for the court's consideration." The court then "agreed" and "thereupon entered the order". The appellate court found that to be "completely appropriate and lawful"




The court found improper motive, and frivolousness too. See my points above.

She then spends 4 pages largely just repeating her previous points

She divided her reply in parts and I will address them in parts too whenever I feel like it.

That reads to me like splitting hairs on its legality, but what do I know. I leave the lawfagging to you, dear friend

The law had an exception that made it legal for people like Kyle to carry. Court ruled that this exception applied. To the extent that that exception may seem stupid, it is the fault of the legislator, not the judge, and still legal.

Did she introduce a quote to completely validate the argument that she is not suing for IIED but another reason? Look at page 14 of her response to fees. I think she did.

Probably. She does that allow. Can you screenshot the specific part you are talking about?

Nobody except loons uses Black's. It's a useful reference in the background, but so many nut bars cite it that citing it is kind of a tell of being a nut bar.

Tbf, courts like to use Black's. There's a joke to be made about slavery there, I'm sure

 

[talk talk talk]

I just have it for reference when writing so I know what terms to use instead of writing gibberish (like Melinda)

You mean the Legally Defined book right? I have that somewhere. Should work on organizing my stuff one day.

It's not that Blacks is bad. It isn't--it's just a quick reference to some legal terms. Before ubiquitous internet, it was a useful tool when someone used some fancy Law Latin phrase that you didn't understand.

The problem is that if you look at crazy filings, every crazy sovereign citizen or Mountain Jew or prisoner appeal cites to some old edition of Black's. So if you are an actual professional, you avoid a Black's citation because it makes you look like some sovcit or Mountain Jew or prisoner with nothing better to do than complain that the warden won't let him have his porn.

ETA

Tbf, courts like to use Black's. There's a joke to be made about slavery there, I'm sure

My experience is that courts like Merriam-Websters when they are looking for definitions of words. Instead of using Black's for legal terms, they will just dig around in old state and (for really old and strange terms) territorial court decisions to find definitions. I can't think of any decision in my jurisdiction that used Black's within the past couple decades.

Of course, your jurisdiction may vary.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

I’m just waiting for the “Ashley lusts after Marshall” saga since Melinda is so paranoid she’s accused practically every female in thread of doing so.

Thinking about Ashley in any kind of sexual situation makes me uncomfortable. It's not often you meet someone so physically and intellectually repulsive. Hope even Marshall has higher standards.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

I’m just waiting for the “Ashley lusts after Marshall” saga since Melinda is so paranoid she’s accused practically every female in thread of doing so. Even when said posters were clearly being sarcastic- Oh wait. I forgot Melinda thinks domestic rape is a bonus point for a righteous man.

Nobody lusts after Marshall. Thats why he is with Melinda

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Nobody lusts after Marshall. Thats why he is with Melinda

oof

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

oof

You don't end up with a crazy redneck, methhead, cousin fucker who had 5 kids from 5 different men at the time, spouting fake jewish slogans, holding onto 6 figures of debt, and can't get any housing assistance if you haven't created a new rock bottom for yourself in the dating world. Thats exactly what Marshall has done

 

[Forgotten Snack Cake]

You don't end up with a crazy redneck, methhead, cousin fucker who had 5 kids from 5 different men at the time, spouting fake jewish slogans, holding onto 6 figures of debt, and can't get any housing assistance if you haven't created a new rock bottom for yourself in the dating world. Thats exactly what Marshall has done

We all know that, but Melinda here has to go through the poor bastards phone on the regular to make sure he’s not trying to hit up any fine Kiwi women who have been lustfully longing to be as brutally raped and murdered as Bradley.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

It's not that Blacks is bad. It isn't--it's just a quick reference to some legal terms. Before ubiquitous internet, it was a useful tool when someone used some fancy Law Latin phrase that you didn't understand.

The problem is that if you look at crazy filings, every crazy sovereign citizen or Mountain Jew or prisoner appeal cites to some old edition of Black's. So if you are an actual professional, you avoid a Black's citation because it makes you look like some sovcit or Mountain Jew or prisoner with nothing better to do than complain that the warden won't let him have his porn.

As I said, I just use it when I'm writing stuff. I like to make sure I get terms as correct as I can and make a world as believable as possible. Current thing I'm working on myself needs a court document written up so looking how best to make that look good to players for CoC. Been researching 1960's and 1970's court cases to see how they wrote things back then and how evidence was presented.

 

[Sir Dank-a-Lot]

Summary of Melinda’s latest filings summed up in one sentence:

Moron says what?

I can’t wait to see the legal curb-stomping she’s going to get.