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]

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.

I don't know whats sadder. Melinda having to make sure Marshall doesn't leave her for anything that moves and has a hole or Marshall being so pathetic that all he could attract is Melinda

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Spoiler: Analysis Part 2

Mel made this part is super short



In the above cited case they did not claim that failure to pay appeal bond is irrelevant, and appeal should still be allowed. Instead they said "that [a] litigant cannot ignore an order setting an appeal bond without consequences to [its] appeal, perhaps even if the bond was improperly imposed.". They did allow the appeal to move on due to several reasons. Those reasons being "bond’s facial invalidity and the potential prejudice to [the Appellant]". Further they said that "[the Appellant] should have done so and risked having its appeal dismissed."

Considering that in this case the appeal bond is facially valid, the appeal is in bad faith (as certified), and there are no “legitimate questions” to be raised on appeal (as certified), and considering the potential prejudice to Null (the situation in this case is different than in the above cited case where in the Appellant had shown every cent of their finances and knew recovery was impossible) the exception should not apply, and their comment about "litigant cannot ignore an order setting an appeal bond without consequences to [its] appeal," should be applied.

Furthermore, even if this lawsuit made appeal bonds illegal, it's value is destroyed by Supreme Court confirmed validity of appeal bonds. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R. Co., 128 U.S. 258, Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124, Beall v. New Mexico, 83 U.S. 535, Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U.S. 378, etc.

Furthermore, the case cited by Mel never declared Appeal Bonds illegal/unconstitutional.

For these reasons her argument fails

Spoiler: Part 3, 4

Mel argues that the reason the court keeps pointing out that she is a frequent frivolous litigant is because...they have to read her complaints "liberally"

The argument is stupid. They are indeed required to read pro se complaints liberally. They are not required to point out Mel is a frequent frivolous litigant. The fact that they did should mean something to you, Mel.


Even better! Now she argues that because the court pointed out she was a frequent frivolous litigant, it means it did not read her complaint liberally.

She argues that the court both did and did not read her complaint liberally. Amazing, Needless to say, this is all stupid.

Part 4 repeats the same arguments as in part 1.

 

[super thug]

So basically you failed at breastfeeding because you don't follow The Torah and you want to act like you're just a victim of your body's wierdness.

No, you're not a victim. You're evil and that's why you had dried up your breasts. One's own evil manifests to destroy the body.

I never had any problems breastfeeding all 6 of my children for a total of 12 years so far. Hm, I wonder why!

@ConSluttant never said that they, themselves, ever had any issues with breastfeeding. They were listing some of the more common complications some women experience with breastfeeding. Everyone can see that.

This might blow your mind, but most women probably think it's pretty strange to have all of your self-worth tied up in something that nature has simply given you. It's like those people that brag about who their ancestors are and what their ancestors did. Your ancestors' accomplishments are not your own, if that's all you have to hold onto to fulfill your sense of self-worth then you don't have very much self-worth now, do you? It'd be like a man bragging about being able to take a piss without taking his pants off. Yes, it's a thing most guys can do, so why would anyone tie up so much of their self-worth in it?

Why are you so bad at something as simple as reading? Is English your second language? What were you saying about having a genius level IQ?

You're absolutely right when you say that I'll never know what it feels like to carry a child in my body and give birth to it and nurse it/feed it from my own body. I'll never know what that feels like. Okay, I can live with that. I don't really have a choice. Do I? So why even worry about it?

On the other side of that, you'll never know what it feels like to be a man who feels like he's about to conquer the world. You could know what it feels like to be a woman about to conquer the world, but we all know that isn't destined to be your path in life. Life, for me, doesn't resemble life anymore. Life is becoming like some sort of strange movie that I'm just a character in. Am I dreaming all of this? Why is everything so easy suddenly?

Everything is aligning itself behind me as I become the tip of the fucking spear. I can't even begin to describe how good it feels. It could all fall apart in an instant but until that instant, I'm having a blast.

There's so much in this world that needs fixing, there's an infinite amount of opportunity out there. Getting rich off of fixing the world, is there any better life than that? I look at it as a life of service. I live to serve. These days, I always try to serve the highest good.

I'm with Marshall. He's the only man I've been with since I've turned 30. I've been riding the same dick my entire 30s. I
I've never cheated on anybody, not once, my entire life. I'm opposed to any form of cheating on the basis of moral principle. Cheating is never justified. So, there's no way for me to be fucking my cousin at the same time as Marshall.

It's like she expects an award, or some sort of recognition, just because she's been unsuccessful in leaving him so many times now. Gotta grab that self-worth wherever you can find it, I guess...?

I would not let any of my sons go armed to a protest at 19 years old. All that boy's grief could have been avoided by his parents exercising more dominion over him.

lmao! You wouldn't allow your hypothetical armed, 19 year old son to go to a protest armed? How would you stop him, exactly? Marshit probably won't be around anymore, you'll have destroyed his identity too by then as well. Even if he is still around, neither one of you would be able to stop a 19 year old boy. The two of you combined wouldn't be able to stop a 19 year old boy.

So I'm really curious, and if you don't answer my question because you're ignoring me like the coward that you are, then I hope someone else will ask you as well: please tell me how you would "exercise dominion" over him? Would you bribe him or threaten him? Plata o plomo? Carrot or stick? How do you plan on controlling the actions of another legal adult? I'm genuinely curious.

I was starting to feel bad for you guys. I was starting to not want to fight with mitchell anymore. I'll still do it because I said I would, but I was starting to not want to. He just looks at that camera so fucking pathetically, so insecurely. Have you ever caught him huffing paint or doing inhalants of any kind? I've been trying to figure out just what the fuck is wrong with him, it looks like a few different things I've seen but doesn't quite align nicely with anything in my own experience. I've never seen inhalant abuse results before. This could be it? Maybe he just does a whole bunch of other shit as well, and that's why we kiwi farmers get these mixed readings off of him?

You both seem like complete fucking tards, it's amazing to me that you're both in your 30's. You act and "feel" like 15-17 year old kids. You really do! Both of you! Most kids that age are probably smarter than you two are. It's like your understanding of the world has never progressed past a high schooler's understanding of the world. I feel like me fighting him would be like me fighting a child, it doesn't sit 100% right with me at certain times. I'll still do it unless he cancels.

Zip code. Also, is kicking and kneeing allowed? I'm fine either way. Just know that if you agree to rules and then break them, it's going to be pretty upsetting to me. You really don't want to try and be "clever" that way, you just don't. Trust me.

 

[LoverofPi]

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

This part, specifically.

It's like she expects an award, or some sort of recognition, just because she's been unsuccessful in leaving him so many times now. Gotta grab that self-worth wherever you can find it, I guess...?

It's also, in context, a deflection away from answering the other half of the question she was asked, specifically if she had had sex with one or more of her cousins. She answered to say in effect "I am not currently" and hoped we wouldn't notice she did not address the "have you ever" portion.

One of Mel's biggest problems is her misplaced feeling of being smarter than everyone else and her apparently compulsive need to prove it. It leads to her putting her foot in her mouth on an extremely frequent basis.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Spoiler: Part 5 (and the end of her informal reply)

Presuming this is true, the court need not dismiss the complaint based on arguments of the defendants. They can dismiss it based on their own arguments, and sua sponte, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).



No facts to support her claim. The Judge has no duty to recuse himself based on your baseless speculation. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, United States v. Detemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998 ).



The Judge never mentioned that his dismissals of Jane and John Does was based on Moon's Motion to dismiss. What they did say, however. "Because the plaintiff’s allegations are wholly insufficient, I will also dismiss the claims against the John and Jane Does pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). "

Her arguments are more of her favorite baseless allegations that she has not, and cannot, prove.



Court can dismiss sua sponte, without any needed representation



Hardin never dismissed (he's not even a judge) claims against the unnamed defendants, nor did those defendants need to have counsel.

In regards to the claim that it was not "properly decided", I will present this:




Moon's alleged hostility to you is not relevant in general, and in this lawsuit. Hurt fee fees is not a claim in law.


They did




When you make allegations, the burden is on you to prove it. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 ("it is incumbent on the moving party to introduce, or to offer, distinct evidence in support of the motion"). Null does not have to do your job for you


He did not do that though. He said it was part of your complaint





Is it just me or did she once again misread what Hardin stated?






You did not:


That's all she said about Null's contribution, which is to say she said nothing at all.




"Because both Hardin and Judge used the term "speculating" that means there is a massive conspiracy and therefore prejudice"

That is a stupid, and clearly frivolous argument.



Facts:






Wrong. Courts can easily remove, or limit, your right to file lawsuits, if you abuse the court process. Such restrictions have been valid since at least 1962. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Even harsher restrictions have been found valid like pre-filing injunctions since at least, in the Fourth Circuit, 1977. See Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977)





While it is not required, failure to cite case law does nothing more than heavily weaken your arguments. Furthermore you are not forbidden from using caselaw.



Conclusory and without evidence.



He is not wrong, though. Here's what he claimed:

He is correct:




Melinda, the illiterate mongoloid, read the part about her providing no caselaw violation in one specific claim, and took it to mean that he claimed that she never provided it for any of her claims.










As the court explained, the service was very likely invalid.




The fact that he may be registered to vote in Florida, does not mean he lives in Florida. in 2020 there were ~90k registered voters in Florida that had no right to vote (likely due to no longer living there). Assuming he did live in Florida, he still has not yet been served, and as such the court has (had) no jurisdiction over him.


If the district courts no-note of is immunity of 230 was proof of lack of such immunity, the argument would similarly follow that their no-note of his lack of immunity means he has it.

This argument is stupid and self-defeating.

She uses the same arguments for her next claim about res judicata. Similarly (and for more reasons than noted) it fails.


Judge ordering a hearing is not the same as you requesting a Rule 11 hearing, which you did not do.



I'll skip it then


Hardin didn't state "any". He stated "Ms. Scott repeatedly moves to recuse judges who fail to rule in her favor. " That sentence is verifiably true (as per her own admittion)

She then goes on to make a conclusion part, which is just a repeat of all other parts.

This part, specifically.

Good point.

 

[LoverofPi]

So, the "excusable neglect thing" has been niggling away at my brain a bit, and I have remembered where it is ACTUALLY from.

Excusable Neglect is part of the NC General Statutes, 1A-1, 60(b)(1) specifically, and it is not a required component, merely one of several possible. Where Mel got that it needs to be shown and why she thinks a North Carolina statute applies to her federal case filed in a virginia courthouse is beyond me.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So, the "excusable neglect thing" has been niggling away at my brain a bit, and I have remembered where it is ACTUALLY from.

Excusable Neglect is part of the NC General Statutes, 1A-1, 60(b)(1) specifically, and it is not a required component, merely one of several possible. Where Mel got that it needs to be shown and why she thinks a North Carolina statute applies to her federal case filed in a virginia courthouse is beyond me.

Excusable Neglect is not a NC exclusive. That being said it doesn't apply to her claims that Null had to prove it to overturn the default (see part 5 of my analysis)

 

[obliviousbeard]

Why do I get the feeling that she's approaching these filings the same way she does her forum postings.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Why do I get the feeling that she's approaching these filings the same way she does her forum postings.

As someone who has read both her filings and her forum posts, there is very little difference between the two.

 

[LoverofPi]

Excusable Neglect is not a NC exclusive. That being said it doesn't apply to her claims that Null had to prove it to overturn the default (see part 5 of my analysis)

Fair point, it is late and I did not bother to see where else it applied. I wholeheartedly agree though that it is not a necessary thing for Null to prove and that his default could have been overturned on any number of grounds, like service being improper, like it was.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

@TamarYaelBatYah I am an actual mother and as usual @fnaarf is completely correct that hauling your children around from eviction to eviction from a variety of lousy rentals is not being nomadic but just sad and awful for them.

Such a liar. You're a man who lives in Bronx, NY. You're neither a woman nor do you live on the West Coast like you claim. At first I thought you were fnaarf on a second profile because you have the same ignorance of The Hebrew Bible she has, but then you've clicked on several of my papers and I've been able to track your IP through your clicking. Stupid ass.

You're also a parent who has passed on your diseased sexist Talmudic religion called Rabbinical Judaism to your children. So worry about your own sin and that giant LOG in your eye. You've fucked up your children by passing down sexism and the Talmud to them. Every feminist in the world thinks your Rabbinical Judaism is trash because it is.

Second, you think that because some idiotic Troll agrees with another idiotic Troll that somehow you have managed to magically change the energy of the universe? No. You're still just one stupid Troll agreeing with another stupid Troll.

Two idiots in agreement =/= Truth.

I've only been evicted once and it was to protect my children from an awful landlord policy. So neither your facts nor your perceived notions of "Truth" are accurate. Most of all, NEWSFLASH: I didn't ask for your opinion on how to raise my children. I don't care about your opinions on how to raise children. Ever heard the term "unsolicited advice"? You can say whatever you want about how to raise my children, I'm not going to care in the slightest. It will be in "one ear and out the other" because I don't respect you and your diseased religions in the slightest.

Why do you waste your time expressing your opinion in this manner as if I care what you think about my life choices???

So no rebuttal about your failure to provide a stable home for your kids? I'm right and you know it.

You only wish you were right. Such a narcissistic statement from you. Only narcissistic people interpret another person's refusal to engage or their silence as "I'm right!" or "I won!". You're so highly narcissistic --- typical of you Christians, & thanks for continuing to validate my belief with every word out of your mouth that Christians are some of the most highly narcissistic people on the planet -- you're so highly narcissistic that you cannot even fathom the possibility that someone might not engage with you, ignore your or choose silence because they don't want to continue to give you narcissistic supply by responding.

There doesn't need to be a "rebuttal". I don't have to defend such an accusation which is based on your delusions, not facts. I don't owe you an explanation for my life choices.
NEWSFLASH: you're some random person/a stranger on the internet. I don't owe you an explanation for my life choices. You can try to put me on the defensive for any accusation you want. I don't have to engage with your narcissism.

It really doesn't matter if I have kids or not. Having been under the care of a mother means I'm capable of critiquing other mothers. Simple as that.

Ahhhhahahaha

Such pompousness arrogance. Oh, I just can't. The insolence of that comment. Oh, wow. I just can't.

If I had said something like that when I was 17 to one of the women who raised me, I would have been slapped so hard in the face I'd be bed ridden for half a day. My grandmother's generation did not tolerate such arrogance.

Lady, when you have lived through 9 months of a pregnancy, several hours of labor and delivery, months of postpartum recovery, 2 years of breastfeeding, soms sleepless nights, frequent interupted sleep, and then gotten up on your feet every day to cook, shop, bathe, school, nurse, manage bills, manage housing, and look after even ONE child day after day after day, then you can stand there judging other moms. Until you have done that, you have ZERO room to talk. You are like every woman who has theories about motherhood but no experience. Without experience your theories mean nothing. Your notion that you can judge your own mom or other moms just because you have been a child is utterly ridiculous.

You, as I believe, had a place of residence for most of your life and moved only when forced by circumstances, usually to another fixed place of residence.

That's what you believe based on fantasies in your head.

Proof of claim? Oh wait. You can't produce proof of that because like I said, your brain is wired for narcissistic narratives.

Thanks for continuing to validate with every passing word what I know to be true about Goyim.

View attachment 2733593

Naughty, naughty!

Your delusions have no end.

That does NOT say I will shoot him for trying to collect. It also says in self defense.

EPIC FAIL ON YOUR PART

He lied (not surprising since it's Joshua Moon).... and I rest my case.

Is that Melinda lying about something easily provable? Not a good look

Oh, by all means, TRY proving it. Try showing one statement where I said I will shoot him for trying to collect a judgment. His exact words: "for trying to collect a judgment".

Go ahead. Keep trying to find a statement that matches that.

You're all liars. Joshua Moon, Matthew Hardin and you Trolls.

The fact that I could catch you on record lying to judges too.... PRICELESS.

She accuses every judge that ever ruled against her of being corrupt,

You're such a liar Matthew Hardin.

Guess you realize how weak your hand is now that your client has been exposed as having built websites for child pedophilia

Sickos.

Because you are in the same position as many other women regardless of their belief system and regardless of how good or evil they are - your body responds well to breastfeeding. You would invalidate those who have trouble which is evil in and of itself - true misogyny. You worship a false idol. I suggest you step off that pedestal because Elohim will wait a long time to take necessary vengeance. Elohim will not be mocked.

Ah, you're a Christian -- (you just revealed that by quoting your Pauline "G-d will not be mocked") -- that's why you spew out evil nonsense from your mouth.

It's not misogyny to say women are evil when they are in fact evil. Women don't get a blanket of immunity just because they are women. You're throwing around the term "misogyny" because I said something against evil women and that's not the correct application of the word at all. Misogyny isn't just "saying stuff against women" - it's showing prejudice or hatred against women on the basis of their gender. By me saying that women who are evil receive a punishment is me treating women as equals: they get equal consequences as men for their sin. Women aren't "Angels" who can do not wrong. To treat women as "Angels" is misogyny (another form of dehumanization).

Lady, you're a blind idiot and your theology built on your blindness is utter garbage. You can sit here and try to deny all day what The Torah says about breastfeeding, you're still wrong. You're a lawless Christian, therefore you are ignorant of The Torah.

Even more foolish it that you as a blind Christian are trying to stand in judgment of me. Comical! Lady, get the log out of your own eye, you're not even half as righteous as me. I'll sit on my pedestal above you because that my rightful place to be. The Righteous of the earth sit above the evil people of the earth and always will for all eternity.

When my Father returns to judge the Goyim you evil Goyim will be made into my footstool.

So if you are an actual professional, you avoid a Black's citation

More misinformation from Rekeita Flaw "Law".

The judges in the case law cited used black laws dictionary. The black laws citation was from case law. The Restatements of Judgments uses Blacks law too.

Nobody lusts after Marshall. Thats why he is with Melinda

Statistically, married men actually have an increased number of women who hit on them. The reason being that Goy and Messianic women have a thing for hitting on married men due to their internalized misogyny and need for narcissistic competition. Also, studies reveal that women also hit on married men because apparently finding a man who will "tie the knot" makes him more attractive to other women. Guess therr are too many man whores these days.

A third type of women also go for married men: women who want the benefits and not the responsibility of having a husband. These women want a "husband for rent" when they want it but they don't want the responsibility of cleaning and cooking after him, household bills, domestic responsibility and bearing children. So they generally try to latch onto married men because they want a secondary role. Like a mistress thing.

True facts.

Marshall could have (and still could) pick someone else. He has a job, is physically attractive, has a house and a car. He also isn't a heavily tattooed drug addict, so he is the type of guy women go for. Employed and not something you'd be afraid to take home to your parents. Even if he wasnt employed there's pkenty of women in their 40's ready to be some man's sugar mama.

Marshall picked me because of my unique spiritual inner attributes and my intellectual/verbal intelligence. I'm a rare asset that matches his rare assets. People like to marry someone who shares their interests. A man who is an exceptional trumpet artist will want a woman who is an exceptional artist, and so on. Because there's millions of good looking pretty women all over the world, but a wise man wants something deeper.

He doesn't cheat on me because it's forbidden in The Torah (and maybe because he knows I'd do "eye for eye"). He doesn't divorce me because he doesn't have a just cause reason under The Torah. The Rabbi Marshall follows says that "Unless a matter of pornea he who divorces his wife and marries another commits Adultery".

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

I absolutely cherish these kind of comments you make because it absolutely rips the mask off of your nature as a narcissistic Goy. Priceless!

To the outside world watching: Read this man's comment and see the disgusting misogynistic heart of a Goy man. Be warned and be advised. Notice how he also expect women to be "providers". Be warned and be advised righteous women of the earth: don't marry Goy men, no matter how big their dicks are, or how tall and good looking they might be, because this is what lies beneath their human skin: ugly hearts.

Besides the fact that I don't have "six figures of debt", and I don't take drugs (my drug free lifestyle being another reason Marshall chose me)...your comment shows why Marshall is a better man than you. He was a single father when he met me and he treated me AS AN EQUAL as a woman who had children when he met me. He wasn't a virgin and didn't expect me to be either. He had his fair of sexual relationships and didn't expect me to be a sexless woman. He had children and saw the sense in marrying a woman who could relate/also had children.

What are you? A fucking virgin? LMAO

Oh no, your just a misogynistic man who funded multiple abortions and wants to condemn women for having sex and brining life into the world. You're a murderer and a sexist. You're absolutely going to be condemned when Elohim returns to judge the Goyim. Sucks to be you.

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

Spoiler: Analysis Part 2

Mel made this part is super short

View attachment 2734282

In the above cited case they did not claim that failure to pay appeal bond is irrelevant, and appeal should still be allowed. Instead they said "that [a] litigant cannot ignore an order setting an appeal bond without consequences to [its] appeal, perhaps even if the bond was improperly imposed.". They did allow the appeal to move on due to several reasons. Those reasons being "bond’s facial invalidity and the potential prejudice to [the Appellant]". Further they said that "[the Appellant] should have done so and risked having its appeal dismissed."

Considering that in this case the appeal bond is facially valid, the appeal is in bad faith (as certified), and there are no “legitimate questions” to be raised on appeal (as certified), and considering the potential prejudice to Null (the situation in this case is different than in the above cited case where in the Appellant had shown every cent of their finances and knew recovery was impossible) the exception should not apply, and their comment about "litigant cannot ignore an order setting an appeal bond without consequences to [its] appeal," should be applied.

Furthermore, even if this lawsuit made appeal bonds illegal, it's value is destroyed by Supreme Court confirmed validity of appeal bonds. See Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R. Co., 128 U.S. 258, Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U.S. 124, Beall v. New Mexico, 83 U.S. 535, Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U.S. 378, etc.

Furthermore, the case cited by Mel never declared Appeal Bonds illegal/unconstitutional.

For these reasons her argument fails

Spoiler: Part 3, 4

View attachment 2734375
View attachment 2734376

Mel argues that the reason the court keeps pointing out that she is a frequent frivolous litigant is because...they have to read her complaints "liberally"

The argument is stupid. They are indeed required to read pro se complaints liberally. They are not required to point out Mel is a frequent frivolous litigant. The fact that they did should mean something to you, Mel.

View attachment 2734377
Even better! Now she argues that because the court pointed out she was a frequent frivolous litigant, it means it did not read her complaint liberally.

She argues that the court both did and did not read her complaint liberally. Amazing, Needless to say, this is all stupid.

Part 4 repeats the same arguments as in part 1.

In your opinion, when should the courts finally just raise their collective hands and be done with this mess? Every time they even say something Melinda views as negative, she shrieks that they're breaking laws, not viewing her arguments liberally, or just flat out says wrong or corruption. The longer the courts let this drag on, the more it hurts Josh's pocketbook, and the courts must be aware by now that Melinda isn't going to bring forth a coherent argument.

@TamarYaelBatYah You're unhinged this morning. Rough night?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Oh, by all means, TRY proving it. Try showing one statement where I said I will shoot him for trying to collect a judgment. His exact words: "for trying to collect a judgment".

It's in the record.

You're such a liar Matthew Hardin.

Funny, one could call you a liar for endlessly alleging I am Hardin (based on no more evidence than that both he and I know law and disagree with you)

By the way, that's not what my post says. You edited it to say things I have not said in that post, liar. Ironic considering you call me one.

Guess you realize how weak your hand is now that your client has been exposed as having built websites for child pedophilia

Sickos.

Ashley is a none liar. I don't know why you trust her words.
None of your allegations about Null are proven, and most, if not all, are completely false (or heavily misrepresented).

More misinformation from Rekeita Flaw "Law".

The judges in the case law cited used black laws dictionary. The black laws citation was from case law. The Restatements of Judgments uses Blacks law too.

He is not Rekieta. Stop being paranoid. You are sounding like a szicho.

In your opinion, when should the courts finally just raise their collective hands and be done with this mess?

When they should? Now
When they will? Soon, hopefully.

Courts tend to treat pro se plaintiffs as retarded children, and try to give them every advantage and benefit of the doubt they can. That being said, I hope the appeals court acts fast.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

@TamarYaelBatYah Get a job or shut the fuck up

Quit fucking your cousin

Quit seethe posting on the internet

Quit filing frivolous lawsuits and wasting everyone's time and money

 

[Karl der Grosse]

Marshall could have (and still could) pick someone else. He has a job, is physically attractive, has a house and a car. He also isn't a heavily tattooed drug addict, so he is the type of guy women go for. Employed and not something you'd be afraid to take home to your parents.

Marshall's a greasy, chubby manlet. He has a job doing grunt manual labor for low wages. He doesn't own a house, he rents. He has a car, a beater car, that was immobile last time that you fled from Marshall's warm embrace. He does work, though, so he does have a leg up on many single men in rural and poor SW Virginia.

The drug issue is open, as far as I'm concerned. I personally think that it's pretty clear that Marshall takes mind-altering substances, but we won't know for sure until he gets picked up by the cops for meth, or weed. Or gets a DUI, that's possible too. Or you admit it the next time that you leave Marshall forever. Or when Marshall gets sick of dealing with a crazy broad and 5 children that aren't his and that he has no desire to parent, and kicks you to the curb.

As for wanting to bring him home to your parents? Yeah, most parents wouldn't be thrilled to meet a mouth-breathing ditch-digger with a record of domestic violence. Nor would they thaw any when Marshall opened his mouth and started his beyond stupid yapping about any or all of the following topics: what a tough guy he is, his desire for the mexicans and injuns to rise up and kill all of the white people, his 'religious' beliefs, his sovereign citizen nonsense, or his fervent belief that the world is actually flat.

He was a single father when he met me

He wasn't single, though. You started an emotional, long-distance relationship with Marshall while he was still married, didn't you? As for the 'father' bit, Marshall has never been a father in anything other than a biological sense.

 

[talk talk talk]

Unlike Nick Rekeita, I have actual clients to represent, so I can't spend all day harvesting exceptional super chats with my buds.

TBF to Rackets, he does have a flair for hosting discussions and live streams. I had his coverage of the Rittenhouse trial on in the background whenever I wasn't in some Zoom hearing. I don't know if I would refer Kandiyohi county potential clients to him, but I definitely recommend his live coverage stream.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Unlike Nick Rekeita, I have actual clients to represent, so I can't spend all day harvesting exceptional super chats with my buds.

Sometimes he has clients. Like maybe once a month. You are right though, super chats are his main gig

 

[Skeletor]

@TamarYaelBatYah which cast member of Dune is the hottest?

 

[Null]

I hold utter contempt for all the people smugposting in this fucking thread when the courts are completely oblivious to the abuse happening and are never going to do anything about it.

Like, "durr! Melinda! You should be using THIS legal textbook instead of THAT one! not a good look!". Fuck off. She files garbage and it costs real money and it takes months to deal with and the courts are constantly flabbergasting everyone with their endless patience and permissiveness for this sort of bullshit. Then immediately afterwords you're all back to smugposting the same shit.

This creature files a motion to seal her case while actively posting on the website she claims she needs protection on and wins. How? How the fuck is something so absurd even in the realm of possibilities?

The only thing more absurd is people still posting in this thread acting like everything's OK because this insane person isn't filing things like a professional would. Yeah, obviously, it's all worthless garbage. The problem is that people take it seriously. Maybe tone down your pride a little.

 

[talk talk talk]

Sometimes he has clients. Like maybe once a month. You are right though, super chats are his main gig

Yup. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think the past week has been a breakthrough for him. I hope he is able to continue being the host of some sort of legal roundtable for court coverage, because he is good at it.