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.

This greasy dirt-encrusted dude needs a 4 hour shower with pumice soap.
I really hope he/they have submitted this writ of certiorari to SCOTUS with the demand for an oral hearing because without doubt they screwed it up and that'll be an end to their foolishness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadameMidlifeCrisis
Why doesn't he have chat enabled on his videos? Such a brave lolcow............betting she cucks him with Jamal every night.

EDIT: Who this gobblin anyway?
 
What’s the government gonna do? Nothing, they’re gonna shit their pants and do jackshit.
 
Canine with Fangs said:
It actually does say it's docketed. Does this mean a hearing is actually going to happen? If so this has the potential to be truly wonderful.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's going to be considered. And then immediately dropped because the previous explanations for dropping the case already poopoo'd her arguments that Null violated the Privacy Act considering he's not a fucking government worker. The explanation for grating the petition goes on about "muh cyberstalking" and "muh first amendment can be restricted" but more terrifyingly seems to think this case, if the Supreme Court ruled against Null, would allow anyone publishing government documents to be labelled a "state actor".
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadameMidlifeCrisis
IANAL, but I'm gonna make a prediction... they laugh, wrinkle it up, and throw it in the trash, and say "We ain't got time for that shit!"

They have made so many blunders I would be very shocked to the core if SCOTUS actually did hear the case, let alone finds in favor of these mountain-dwelling Jewish hillbillies. The person that looks at it should just put the full text of the First Amendment in a rejection letter and tell them to stop wasting the time and taxpayer dollars of the courts.

Also, I would love to see this come up when Nick Rekieta is on stream with Ty Beard. In passing of course... it isn't really worth a full 3 hour episode. lul
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: AmarettoPie, MadameMidlifeCrisis, Fritos and 4 others
Coleslaw said:
Will we see Scott v. Moon dismissed in the latest volume of the U.S. Reports?
Click to expand...

It's a distinct possibility. The entire case citation would simply consist of one sentence: "The writ of certiorari is denied."

But it would put Null's legal name in the US Reports. Which is pretty funny.

Also, joke's on them, the SCOTUS has required, for several years now, all litigants to have barred attorneys. Unlike district courts, they no longer allow pro-se litigation.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: AmarettoPie, Kosher Salt, stets and 6 others
Doc Cassidy said:
Part 2
Click to expand...

LOL arent these clowns divorced or separated? I guess YAH HOOO AH and Null fix all relationships!

btw for saying we are making assumptions about the law, he dosent even understand he has to serve papers to someone living across the fucking world! :story:

And listen to them chastise Kiwis for not knowing what we are talking about, while making a couple dozen assumptions about Nick Rackets! :story::story::story:

And for the coup de grace, we gets some elementary school level insults. Such a terror on the legal front awaits poor n00l! 😏
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmarettoPie, Mexican_Wizard_711, GenericReviewerDraco and 4 others
Canine with Fangs said:
It actually does say it's docketed. Does this mean a hearing is actually going to happen? If so this has the potential to be truly wonderful.
Click to expand...
What this means is that the crazies are applying for the supreme court to take the case. 99.999% of cases do not make it past this stage. This is the supreme court's way of saying they are aware of the application.

There is a layer of legal clerks below the justices who review the applications and basically divide them into two piles, one for the judges to take a closer look at because there might be an actual pressing constitutional matter, and the other pile labeled "Lol, nope".

The judges meet, look over all of the cases and vote to issue a writ of Certiorari if they take the case, or deny the writ, saying that they agree with the lower court's decision, and the matter is settled without their intervention. They will generally take a clerks judgment on a denial for a case as crazy as this one, and deny it without discussion.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: AmarettoPie, lemmiwinks, Kosher Salt and 6 others
Captain Manning said:
Also, joke's on them, the SCOTUS has required, for several years now, all litigants to have barred attorneys. Unlike district courts, they no longer allow pro-se litigation.
Click to expand...
That's actually kinda fucked up, because it means that political dissidents might be refused all competent counsel and thus be unable to effectively get remedy from the Supreme Court.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: trickyzerg23, AmarettoPie, cromit and 4 others
Canine with Fangs said:
Pretty sure if every decent lawyer ever tells someone to get fucked the supreme court is probably going to have a similar opinion.
Click to expand...
In theory they're supposed to rule on a case's merits, not the opinion people have of the person in question. If, say, Andrew Anglin was the victim of an unlawful search and seizure, he should have the right to get his case heard even if nobody will take it.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: trickyzerg23, Feline Darkmage, President Joe Biden and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back