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.

Her case wasn't dismissed on technicality, it was dismissed because she failed to make statement of case, i.e. she made a complaint which had no laws backing it up and no relief to be sought for it. That's not a "technicality". A technicality would be fucking up the paperwork somehow. The entire premise of her case was fundamentally flawed. The court moved sua sponte, on its own, a relatively rare occurrence, to dismiss the case on summary judgement in my defense because there was no actual actionable case brought forth.

He's also immediately following his statement that he is wanting to "expose me" by appealing to"anti-fascist groups" and "black people" in Florida, which is a bit of a risky proposition in that if "anti-fascist groups" or "black people" did injure me, I could claim that he encouraged them to break the law. However, considering I don't live at the address he thinks I do, and considering that someone who is not me probably does, it would be extremely bad for him if his incitements to violence led to actual harm because of his claims, as it would preclude any defense that I had brought it upon myself.

Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Instant_Pot_User, trickyzerg23, Dynamite Ninja and 29 others
talk talk talk said:
This was even WORSE than losing on summary judgment. This was a sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

This means the Court presumed all the crazy shit she said was true, and decided she had no legal claim even then.
Click to expand...

It's a state case, so the court did it under state law. That sua sponte dismissal is generally reserved for prison litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. I believe this idiot actually paid a filing fee for this nonsense.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Adamska, Trombonista, Cyber Bowling and 4 others
AnOminous said:
It's a state case, so the court did it under state law. That sua sponte dismissal is generally reserved for prison litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. I believe this idiot actually paid a filing fee for this nonsense.
Click to expand...
Are we both talking about the same case?

I'm talking about Scott v. Wise Cty., et al, File No. 2:17 CV 00023 (W.D.Va.). The order is clear it was dismissed under Sec. 1915.

ETA:

Ah ha! Poked around the threads and I see there were two lolsuits. A State one and a federal one. Both for claims sounding in butthurt and both dismissed.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, Adamska, Trombonista and 2 others
talk talk talk said:
Are we both talking about the same case?

I'm talking about Scott v. Wise Cty., et al, File No. 2:17 CV 00023 (W.D.Va.). The order is clear it was dismissed under Sec. 1915.

ETA:

Ah ha! Poked around the threads and I see there were two lolsuits. A State one and a federal one. Both for claims sounding in butthurt and both dismissed.
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about the other lolsuit, the one against @Null. Sorry.
 
So "Yahoo-wee" didn't work... now he's invoking the wrath of Niggers and Jews? I feel sorry for whoever lives at all of Null's old doxxed addresses. Even if he managed to rally a hit squad, I doubt any of them would be intelligent enough to look at a picture of him before doing a "knock and talk".

Also, what a wonderful way to leave inculpatory evidence laying around should he manage to sperg to just the right insane ass clown about this and something actually does happen. Pretty sure THAT case won't get thrown out on a technicality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: trickyzerg23
AnOminous said:
It's a state case, so the court did it under state law. That sua sponte dismissal is generally reserved for prison litigants proceeding in forma pauperis. I believe this idiot actually paid a filing fee for this nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, if you read the statement by the judge, he mentions granting her appeal for court fees to be waived under the poverty clause
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Adamska
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back