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.

Shaka Brah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I actually talked to a lawyer friend about this years ago when they changed the rule (thinking much the same as yourself), and she opined that if you ever do get a cert granted by SCOTUS, lawyers will line up around the block to argue your case. Even if your case is complete shit and the court nonsensically agreed to hear it.

It's like the Super Bowl for lawyers. Just being able to go is a big fucking deal.

You don't need a lawyer to file for a cert, but you need one if it's granted.

Which means this is already moot anyways. Their cert won't be granted. I'll eat my dick if it is.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: kartana, AmarettoPie, NIGGO KILLA and 22 others
mindlessobserver said:
To be fair, Gideon V. Wainwright was accepted by the US Supreme Court via Clarence Gideon submitting a hand written petition Pro Se to the Supreme Court. He won too, though the court demanded an actual lawyer give the arguments when it went to trial.

Of course Gideon actually had a case, and him actually winning was such bottled lightening that his hand written filing is now in the Smithsonian. the mountain Jews on the other hand are vexatious spastics.
Click to expand...
Gideon's petition is a landmark regarding the right to counsel in criminal cases because the issue of a fair trial was "ripe", which in legal jargon means it was a constant issue being raised across the country at the time in the courts, media and law schools so a decision was needed one way or another. This bullshit is nowhere near as significant as Gideon's case was. "Your honor making fun of me is cyberstalking!" is the whole of her case against Null which hasn't been litigated. The other issue is a state/(maybe) federal court issue which doesn't merit consideration before SCOTUS because it hasn't worked it's way through the courts.

A lawyer has to be certified to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States. If the justices take a pro se litigant's appeal (and this happens more often that you think), the court will appoint an attorney. It's usually a reputable, experienced attorney and because it's prestigious to argue a case before SCOTUS there's a large pool of excellent attorneys available. But this nutcase hasn't a clue what she's doing so her case won't make it even for consideration.

Edit: Just to be clear, SCOTUS does accept and hear pro se writs for certiorari but their rules state only an attorney can argue the case. Doesn't happen all the time but it happens.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: AmarettoPie, Kosher Salt, Feline Darkmage and 4 others
The rule change went into effect in 2013. The last guy that argued pro-se before the SCOTUS ( in 1978 ) actually won 9-0, but I think the court reasoned that most pro-se litigants are dumbasses, and there's really no excuse to tolerate such dumbassery at that level.

Again, *IF* your cert is granted, it's NOT that hard to get an attorney to represent you. In the '78 Sloan case, lawyers were throwing themselves at the guy, offering to do it for free, just for the prestige. If it's criminal (and this isn't) the court will even appoint you a lawyer.

Here's the background:

abovethelaw.com

R.I.P. Pro Se Litigants Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has finally revised its rules to prevent a non-lawyer from arguing before the Court.
abovethelaw.com abovethelaw.com
 
  • Informative
Reactions: lemmiwinks, Kosher Salt, Yuusha-sama and 3 others
Captain Manning said:
The rule change went into effect in 2013. The last guy that argued pro-se before the SCOTUS ( in 1978 ) actually won 9-0, but I think the court reasoned that most pro-se litigants are dumbasses, and there's really no excuse to tolerate such dumbassery at that level.

Again, *IF* your cert is granted, it's NOT that hard to get an attorney to represent you. In the '78 Sloan case, lawyers were throwing themselves at the guy, offering to do it for free, just for the prestige. If it's criminal (and this isn't) the court will even appoint you a lawyer.

Here's the background:

abovethelaw.com

R.I.P. Pro Se Litigants Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has finally revised its rules to prevent a non-lawyer from arguing before the Court.
abovethelaw.com abovethelaw.com
Click to expand...
I recall most pro se writs that have been granted were from prisoners. The court will appoint an attorney in civil cases if the attorney of record has/can't be certified for oral argument. Best way to look at it is appeals and federal court rules are the major leagues of legal practice and the Supreme Court is like the World Series and someone from the farm team rarely, if ever, makes it all the way to the World Series.
 
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: MadameMidlifeCrisis, The Un-Clit and Captain Manning
Trombonista said:
I couldn't finish the video because of the kids screaming in the background.
Click to expand...

I couldn't finish the video because as soon as he held up the piece of paper saying the SCOTUS has *received* their placemat and crayon filing, and then claimed that they had *accepted* their case... my brain crashed.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

And they are lunitics if they think that is going to intimidate Nick. Even Null, as a non-lawyer, probably knows enough about the law to see through that shit.

I'm going back to watching my documentary on YouTube. This is the dumbest thing I saw all week. I'd much rather watch the Mumkey Jones sex tape again, than anything this idiot makes.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: AmarettoPie, Yuusha-sama, MadameMidlifeCrisis and 8 others
Nowhere in this idiot's rambling diatribe did he make anything even resembling a rational point. Everybody on KF is now dumber for having watched that video.

I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

(With apologies to Billy Madison).

Feline Supremacist said:
I recall most pro se writs that have been granted were from prisoners. The court will appoint an attorney in civil cases if the attorney of record has/can't be certified for oral argument. Best way to look at it is appeals and federal court rules are the major leagues of legal practice and the Supreme Court is like the World Series and someone from the farm team rarely, if ever, makes it all the way to the World Series.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are entitled to no cost appointed counsel in a civil matter before the SCOTUS, but I know that I can't be arsed to research that right now because:

1. Again... many lawyers will throw themselves at your feet if your cert is granted. Often for free. It's not as big an issue as some may think given the prestige of arguing before the SCOTUS.

2. This faggot's cert isn't going to be granted.

jellycar said:
Who the fuck is Melinda? Is she like that Melinda woman in the Weeb Wars case?
Click to expand...

Read the OP of this thread.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: AmarettoPie, Yuusha-sama, MadameMidlifeCrisis and 6 others
Jesus fucking Christ. They literally took a case to the highest court in the land because the big mean Kiwi Farms said some awfully mean things about the smartest and most real jews on Earth.

I'm not sure if it's funnier that they submitted a case to the US Supreme Court and expect to win or that the US Supreme Court actually took the case. Hilarity will surely ensue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AmarettoPie, MadameMidlifeCrisis, wabbits and 1 other person
Captain Manning said:
Nowhere in this idiot's rambling diatribe did he make anything even resembling a rational point. Everybody on KF is now dumber for having watched that video.

I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

(With apologies to Billy Madison).



I don't know if you are entitled to no cost appointed counsel in a civil matter before the SCOTUS, but I know that I can't be arsed to research that right now because:

1. Again... many lawyers will throw themselves at your feet if your cert is granted. Often for free. It's not as big an issue as some may think given the prestige of arguing before the SCOTUS.

2. This faggot's cert isn't going to be granted.



Read the OP of this thread.
Click to expand...
My feeling is that if a writ was granted in a civil case, they did so for a reason and as you mentioned, there's no shortage of attorneys competing for a SCOTUS case and there would be some effort to make sure one was available. It wouldn't be an issue.

I can see the clerks showing this garbage to everyone for a laugh-it's the rantings of a meth addled thot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmarettoPie and MadameMidlifeCrisis
Doc Cassidy said:
The site is getting sued in the Supreme Court.

YouTube

www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

View attachment 904308
Click to expand...

"People that are slow or mentally incompetent"

Did he just admit his "wife" is retarded? Jesus H Fuck, does he vape tide pods or whatever the kids are doing these days?

Regardless, I expect a minor amount of hilarity to ensue, followed by not a goddamn thing at the end of it. You know, like all the previous times.

He at the address listed on the dox? Asking because he will probably read this and shit himself cuz of the big bad internet bullies here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trickyzerg23, AmarettoPie, stets and 1 other person
774 said:
Exactly. A two-minute search found a handbook for pro se litigants that says filings must be "typed, printed, or legibly handwritten." Of course, that's for a US District Court, not SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling they saw a rule for some court saying that pro se litigants have to make paper filings (since only attorneys typically have access to electronic filing systems) and this got mangled in their minds into meaning "handwritten." I can't imagine any court has a rule saying that pro se bullshit has to be made even more incomprehensible by requiring it to be handwritten.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: trickyzerg23, murgatroid, Kosher Salt and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back