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.

[Adamska]

Wow, I decide to enjoy my weekend and not only does Marshall the out of shape manlet try to flex over having some muscle with his fat, but the twin tards managed to get the Bryan Dunn treatment after some socking and other shenanigans I missed over the past 5-7 pages.

Then they both cry and run away since now their faces and names are tied to this, the dim realization that a google search will show how they wasted this week or two obvious to all.

I expect more socking later because of their childish desire to get the last word in.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

@TamarYaelBatYah I usually don't argue civil appellate procedure with lunatics unless I am being paid, but I am feeling generous and benevolent today, so let's review the Table of Authorites in Scott v. Moon, et al.

View attachment 1105187

For those unfamiliar with a Table of Authorities in a legal brief, it is a sort of index of every authority--cases, statutes, books--cited in the brief. As an index, it lists both the authority and the page number where it appears in the brief. The Table of Authorities in Scott v. Moon does not list the page numbers.

Second, a proper Table of Authorities groups the types of authorities cited under identifying headings. So statutes are grouped together under the heading "Statutes" and cases are grouped together under the heading "Cases". The Table of Authorities in Scott v. Moon does not have these headings.

Third, legal citations have particular formats. Every single citation in the Table of Authorities in Scott v. Moon has a citation error:

47 USC 230 should be: 47 U.S.C. § 230 (date)
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. V Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F. 3d 250 should be: Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (Circuit year).
Zeran v American Online, Inc 129 F.3d 329 (1997) should be: Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 1997).

Now, for normal people and Mountain Jews, the citation errors don't seem important. But the federal judicial clerks who are the first line of review are law review spergs who have spent hours and hours learning the Bluebook citation rules. And the federal judiciary is made up of former judicial clerks. So anything with fucked up citations--especially inconsistent fucked up citations--immediately gets sorted into the "Lol what a moron" category.

(Edited to fix a citation error. It's been a while since I was a law review sperg.)

Oooh, I see. What a corrupt person you are. You tried to wait until I left, 20 pages AFTER I said no one could address my Appeals, to cowardice your way into a reply. My husband said it was OK for me to come back to the thread to settle this issue. And this issue only. I'm not worried about your fellow KF farms moronic baseless accusations.

Nice try at debunking my pleading but your magic show doesn't work on an educated woman like me. You may be able to fool the uneducated folks on here reading but get ready to have your ass handed to you

For ONE, there is NO legal precedent for discarding a pro-se litigants pleading on the basis of citation and header errors. Nice try though Rekeita.

FOR TWO, the actual legal standard is to construe a Pro-se litigants pleading LIBERALLY. See Vinnedge v Gibbs, 550 F. 2d 926, 928 (4th district)

Also, see Aschcroft and Twombly. "A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged" (Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556)

Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which lower courts are bound to follow, and the Sup. Court must ensure they do, says under Rule 8(e): "pleadings must be construed so as to do justice". In other words, pleadings cannot be tossed out for technical errors when the case law is solid.

So that brings me to my final point: you can harp on technical errors all you want but the FACT remains that my case law supports the legal conclusion that they don't qualify for immunity under CDA 230

That's why you completely ignored the case law. He's only off the hook by corruption.

 

[Deadpool]

Oooh, I see. What a corrupt person you are. You tried to wait until I left, 20 pages AFTER I said no one could address my Appeals, to cowardice your way into a reply. My husband said it was OK for me to come back to the thread to settle this issue. And this issue only. I'm not worried about your fellow KF farms moronic baseless accusations.

Nice try at debunking my pleading but your magic show doesn't work on an educated woman like me. You may be able to fool the uneducated folks on here reading but get ready to have your ass handed to you

For ONE, there is NO legal precedent for discarding a pro-se litigants pleading on the basis of citation and header errors. Nice try though Rekeita.

FOR TWO, the actual legal standard is to construe a Pro-se litigants pleading LIBERALLY. See Vinnedge v Gibbs, 550 F. 2d 926, 928 (4th district)

Also, see Aschcroft and Twombly. "A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged" (Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556)

Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which lower courts are bound to follow, and the Sup. Court must ensure they do, says under Rule 8(e): "pleadings must be construed so as to do justice". In other words, pleadings cannot be tossed out for technical errors when the case law is solid.

So that brings me to my final point: you can harp on technical errors all you want but the FACT remains that my case law supports the legal conclusion that they don't qualify for immunity under CDA 230

That's why you completely ignored the case law. He's only off the hook by corruption.

I thought you weren't posting anymore? Someone's asking to get beaten unconscious and raped!

 

[Army Burger]

Oooh, I see. What a corrupt person you are. You tried to wait until I left, 20 pages AFTER I said no one could address my Appeals, to cowardice your way into a reply. My husband said it was OK for me to come back to the thread to settle this issue. And this issue only. I'm not worried about your fellow KF farms moronic baseless accusations.

Nice try at debunking my pleading but your magic show doesn't work on an educated woman like me. You may be able to fool the uneducated folks on here reading but get ready to have your ass handed to you

For ONE, there is NO legal precedent for discarding a pro-se litigants pleading on the basis of citation and header errors. Nice try though Rekeita.

FOR TWO, the actual legal standard is to construe a Pro-se litigants pleading LIBERALLY. See Vinnedge v Gibbs, 550 F. 2d 926, 928 (4th district)

Also, see Aschcroft and Twombly. "A claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged" (Ashcroft v Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556)

Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which lower courts are bound to follow, and the Sup. Court must ensure they do, says under Rule 8(e): "pleadings must be construed so as to do justice". In other words, pleadings cannot be tossed out for technical errors when the case law is solid.

So that brings me to my final point: you can harp on technical errors all you want but the FACT remains that my case law supports the legal conclusion that they don't qualify for immunity under CDA 230

That's why you completely ignored the case law. He's only off the hook by corruption.

And you lie once again...

 

[Jaded Optimist]

You tried to wait until I left, 20 pages AFTER I said no one could address my Appeals

Chill, some people aren't on here checking a thread every 2 minutes like a meth smoking monkey. Not to mention the last 20 pages are you and @Marshall Castersen being spastics in rapid fire, the thread grows 10 pages every hour because of your incessant screeching.

My husband said it was OK for me to come back to the thread to settle this issue.

Just like with your religious nonsense you change the rules when it's convenient for you. Last time you said @Marshall Castersen said you could never post again, but you came back and said you meant it was only that you couldn't respond to @ForscytheBat.

No convictions at all...

 

[niggers]

AFTER I said no one could address my Appeals

i mean, you better get used to us looking at your retard work, because the courts certainly wont.

also you're an aging idiot with a blown out pussy and welfare income, #owned

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

i mean, you better get used to us looking at your exceptional individual work, because the courts certainly wont.

also you're an aging idiot with a blown out pussy and welfare income, #owned

"Welfare" is just capatilistic lingo for "I don't agree with how you use tax dollars even though I used tax dollars too".

That's the 5th time I've repeated that on this thread because the loyal user base on here is UNEDUCATED

 

[Jaded Optimist]

"Welfare" is just capatilistic lingo for "I don't agree with how you use tax dollars even though I used tax dollars too".

That's the 5th time I've repeated that on this thread because the loyal user base on here is UNEDUCATED

And you aren't obeying your "husband's" commands very well.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

You are in my coffee shop. You can say what you'd like, but if you shit on my floor I'm going to have to clean it up.

Your site isn't dignified enough to be called a Coffee Shop. It's a pig pen for your loyal KF users. The rest of us who hate you come to watch you all wallow in your filth while we laugh

And you aren't obeying your "husband's" commands very well.

My husband doesn't give me commands. I confer with him his opinions

 

[niggers]

"Welfare" is just capatilistic lingo for "I don't agree with how you use tax dollars even though I used tax dollars too".

That's the 5th time I've repeated that on this thread because the loyal user base on here is UNEDUCATED

so you are an rapidly aging idiot with a ruined vagina, but we can't say you're on welfare, thats the line in the sand

wtf it's the middle of the day, melinda, 3 o clock EST. don't you have a whole litter of children from different men to take care of?

 

[Jaded Optimist]

My husband doesn't give me commands. I confer with him his opinions

This sounds an awful lot like he told you (a command) not to post anymore. This is the 2nd time you disobeyed him apparently.

My husband said it was OK for me to come back to the thread to settle this issue. And this issue only.

Why make statements and promises you refuse to keep?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Just like with your religious nonsense you change the rules when it's convenient for you.

A baseless accusation with no facts to back it up. Lady, shut up already. You're so uneducated you make no point and no sense every time you type jibberish. You're an absolute idiot. Go clean something, that's probably all you're good at

 

[Jaded Optimist]

A baseless accusation with no facts to back it up. Lady, shut up already. You're so uneducated you make no point and no sense every time you type jibberish. You're an absolute idiot. Go clean something, that's probably all you're good at

Pot meet kettle. Is it one open hand slap everytime you post? I can keep track for @Marshall Castersen if you want, I know he probably can't count once he runs out of fingers and toes.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

so you are an rapidly aging idiot with a ruined vagina, but we can't say you're on welfare, thats the line in the sand

wtf it's the middle of the day, melinda, 3 o clock EST. don't you have a whole litter of children from different men to take care of?

Just because you spew out a pea brain thought that has no factual basis, and which has already been addressed on the thread already multiple times doesn't mean I need to answer your uneducated nonsense.

The condition of my vagina, my beauty, and my calling out your sexist patriarchy was answered many pages ago. Learn to read a thread properly before commenting.

 

[Deadpool]

"Welfare" is just capatilistic lingo for "I don't agree with how you use tax dollars even though I used tax dollars too".

That's the 5th time I've repeated that on this thread because the loyal user base on here is UNEDUCATED

No it's because we don't agree with what you're saying. Most people's taxes go to the police, roads, public schools etc, not to raise their litter of ignorant, diseased, pigglets. There's nothing wrong with welfare in my mind, it's a social necessity. However it's hypocritical to shit on a country, and then live off it's good graces and think you're entitled to them.

 

[niggers]

it is the middle of the day, melinda. thats a fact.

you have several children from various winners, melinda. that is a fact.

you are neglecting them to posture on an internet forum where you will repeatedly be called a fake jew retard with a massive gash, melinda. that is a fact.

you will only get older, melinda, and they will not get the time you spend here back. that is how time works.

edit: rating statements that hurt your feelings as autistic will get me to laugh, that is also a fact

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

it is the middle of day, melinda. thats a fact.

you have several children from various winners, melinda. that is a fact.

you are neglecting them to posture on an internet forum where you will repeatedly be called a fake jew exceptional individual with a massive gash, melinda. that is a fact.

you will only get older, melinda, and they will not get the time you spend here back. that is how time works.

edit: rating statements that hurt your feelings as autistic will get me to laugh, that is also a fact

This has already been brought up on the thread pages ago. Learn to read a thread properly before you go commenting because all you're doing is repeating stupid commenta

The average mom uses the internet for 110 minutes a day. My average consumption is 45-60 minutes.

U.S. mom daily media usage 2018 | Statista

This statistic shows the daily media usage of moms in the United States as of January 2018.

www.statista.com

Again, you prove yourself UNEDUCATED. Not to mention, I don't owe you an explanation for my time. Worry about yourself and your own private parts. And get some education

it is the middle of the day, melinda. thats a fact.

you have several children from various winners, melinda. that is a fact.

you are neglecting them to posture on an internet forum where you will repeatedly be called a fake jew exceptional individual with a massive gash, melinda. that is a fact.

you will only get older, melinda, and they will not get the time you spend here back. that is how time works.

edit: rating statements that hurt your feelings as autistic will get me to laugh, that is also a fact

And why do you keep bringing up me growing older/aging? I'm not a person obsessed with youth. That's Goy thinking. I'm not worried about aging.

 

[Deadpool]

This has already been brought up on the thread pages ago. Learn to read a thread properly before you go commenting because all you're doing is repeating stupid commenta

The average mom uses the internet for 110 minutes a day. My average consumption is 45-60 minutes.

U.S. mom daily media usage 2018 | Statista

This statistic shows the daily media usage of moms in the United States as of January 2018.

www.statista.com

Again, you prove yourself UNEDUCATED. Not to mention, I don't owe you an explanation for my time. Worry about yourself and your own private parts. And get some education

You're post/rating history proves you a liar. You're clearly lurking most of the day even when you're not posting.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

No it's because we don't agree with what you're saying. Most people's taxes go to the police, roads, public schools etc, not to raise their litter of ignorant, diseased, pigglets. There's nothing wrong with welfare in my mind, it's a social necessity. However it's hypocritical to shit on a country, and then live off it's good graces and think you're entitled to them.

"Most people's taxes go to....public schools etc, not to raise their litter"

how fucking ignorant can you possibly keep exposing yourself to be?

what the fuck do you think a public school is doing?
RAISING PEOPLE'S CHILDREN...free childcare while draining the tax system dry at $8,500/child a year

 

[niggers]

alright, well, i tried. sorry, mongrel kids, you're mother can't pull her head outta her cavernous vagina long enough to think.

i hope the ones that live through high school can get a name change without too much hassle. and i hope you keep arguing for 30 more pages about how you're not a fake jew moron wasting your life and the lives of those in your care.