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.

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

You're sore losers who FAILED AND LOST BAAAHAHAHA

Man, she's so delirious that she can't even make actual responses and just laughs like a fuckin child.
Is this what you teach your children? Is this the kind of show you show them is fine to be? Almost makes me hope Marshall takes the kids tbh

 

[Useful_Mistake]

FAILED AND LOST

How? We weren't even in the suit. Are you accusing us of being Null alts again?

LOST

JOSHUA MOON LOST

college success

If you really want a "win" against someone Melinda, bring in a lawyer that actually knows the law.

Bringing anyone at all that can read would be a major improvement.

HIGHER EDUCATION.

It's not at all a big achievement.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

My college success cost me some jealous frenemies too.

"College success" what college success? You've done nothing with your life other than to pop out retards.

I don't give a flying fuck what you say, you're just trying to divert from the news that JOSHUA MOON LOST

Citations needed.

Null at any point can contest this. Hell, if he needs a lawyer there are a few that are more than happy to help him out while you have no one (shouldn't have burned down so many bridges I guess right Melinda?)

My mom was envious of my success because it made her look bad. I graduated as a single mom, she dumped her children off in foster care getting high and I was the only one brave enough to call her out for it. Truth tellers are the Scapegoats of families. I was the one person that didn't enable my mom's addiction.

I'd rather trust your sisters since unlike what you've proven here, they haven't lied about anything.
Seems to me the one who is envious of others is you Melinda. Careful now, that's another sin to go along with all of the others you've shown here.

 

[Deadpool]

You speak in the name of a false elohim. You're a false prophet!

I speak in the name of God not that pagan deity elhomo you worship, and once again I've never claimed to be a prophet or to have prophetic visions. The fact is one of your tard babies is disabled because God sent a righteous doctor to disable him. That's also why you don't have a malpractice suit win on your record. God loves everyone except you.

You're sore losers who FAILED AND LOST BAAAHAHAHA

I didn't lose shit. You don't even know who I am to serve me, let alone win a judgement against me.

Besides the victory you're crowing about is the same as a boxer talking about how badly that they beat an opponent who didn't show up to the ring. You didn't win nobody told your opponent he was actually booked in a match. You're life is truly fucking pathetic if you're this proud of a non-victory. No wonder your dad killed himself to be away from you.

 

[Kosher Salt]

That's an awful lot of "ha ha you lost" from someone who hasn't even won yet.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

Hold your horses, woman. You’ve still got to convince Jones about the damages. Or is this manic outburst part of your evidence that your fee fees are so hurt you compulsively have to come on here to unstably ree at the big bad mean kiwis. Most of which probably aren’t even aware your thread exists. That’ll show ‘em!

 

[TheShedCollector]

Wonder what she's going to do with her windfall

 

[Deadpool]

Wonder what she's going to do with her windfall

What any njgger would do. Menthol cigarettes and 40s of malt liquor.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

I've been trying to look for a case where a stay-at-home mother proved damages in a defamation case and all I've found is cases where a stay-at-home mother was taken to court over defamation. Also, Melinda will have a hard time proving that being a stay-at-home mom is actually a job. The only real source of income she has is given to her by the government. No matter what Null or anyone in this thread (or Andrew's thread for that matter) can change the amount that is given to her. She can't prove damages to her book sales due to the fact she went to a vanity publisher and it's easy to show the court how they set up their business practices.

Hell the idea she was defamed could also be wrong since no one in her community liked her prior to either Andrew's thread or Melinda's thread existed. She had no reputation to harm, and any harm that could be argued was done by her by her over sharing on the internet and being a very unlikable person. Offensive or otherwise unpleasant statements against her are not defamatory either.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I've been trying to look for a case where a stay-at-home mother proved damages in a defamation

This is not a defamation case. This is a common tort "Hurt Fee fees" case (Intentional infliction of emotional distress). Supreme Court has ruled, though, that hurt fee fees are no match for the First Amendment as long as the person that suffered was a public figure. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 ). (Mel might qualify as a limited purpose public figure). Proof on Public figure thing:

Can being mentioned on the net turn an ordinary citizen into a public figure with severely limited abilities to fight libel and defamation lawsuits? According to a Florida judge's ruling -- perhaps the first of its kind in the United States -- the answer is yes.

In an Oct. 21 ruling, Florida circuit court Judge Karen Cole threw out a defamation case against two TV stations because she deemed the plaintiff -- a JacksonvillThat would pose too great a danger that the jury would punish Westboro for its views on matters of public concern. For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.e woman -- to be a public figure who had been subject to "substantial" internet debate.

Source. While this is a Florida ruling, it would be a good example to give to the judge as to how his comrades have ruled

More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.

Elmer GERTZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WELCH, INC. Supreme Court


Some more citations:

Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (198 (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) Opinion of the Supreme Court

That would pose too great a danger that the jury would punish Westboro for its views on matters of public concern. For all these reasons, the jury verdict imposing tort liability on Westboro for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be set aside.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) Supreme Court

Virginia courts, however, do not favor claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly because it is easy for a plaintiff to fake emotional injury. Whether a plaintiff actually suffered severe emotional distress as a result of a defendant's behavior will always be difficult to prove in the absence of accompanying physical injury.

Source

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

This is not a defamation case. This is a common tort "Hurt Fee fees" case (Intentional infliction of emotional distress). Supreme Court has ruled, though, that hurt fee fees are no match for the First Amendment as long as the person that suffered was a public figure Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 ) (Mel might qualify as a limited purpose public figure). Proof on Public figure thing:



Source. While this is a Florida ruling, it would be a good example to give to the judge as to how his comrades have ruled



Elmer GERTZ, Petitioner, v. ROBERT WELCH, INC. Supreme Court

Majority of defamation cases are just "hurt feelings" cases though. Over here feelings don't matter at all in such cases. Only the amount of money you lose does.

What any njgger would do. Menthol cigarettes and 40s of malt liquor.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Majority of defamation cases are just "hurt feelings" cases though

There is a difference. In defamation cases, you allege that someone lied about you. Here you allege that your fee fees were hurt.

Over here feelings don't matter at all in such cases.

Usually, yeah. And thank God for that.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

There is a difference. In defamation cases, you allege that someone lied about you. Here you allege that your fee fees were hurt.

Usually, yeah. And thank God for that.

Melinda here can't understand English common law, she has no hope of understanding French laws. They have some fun rulings. Like how communicating false information is not a wrongful act.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

More about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. In Virginia, it was only used 44 times.

“the intentional infliction of emotional distress,” sometimes called the tort of “outrage.”... Indeed, we have said recently that such torts are “not favored” in the law.

In this tort action, the plaintiff seeks recovery in damages for alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, independent of any physical injury and unaccompanied by any physical impact.
Therefore, we hold that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer, and the judgment of dismissal will be


Affirmed.

Russo v. White, 241 Va. 23 (1991)Jan. 11, 1991 · Supreme Court of Virginia

Glenn R. McDermott filed a motion for judgment against William Reynolds for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Reynolds’ alleged conduct in maintaining an adulterous relationship with McDermott’s wife. The trial court entered final judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the motion for judgment.
For these reasons, we will affirm the trial court’s judgment.


Affirmed.

McDermott v. Reynolds, 260 Va. 98 (2000)June 9, 2000 · Supreme Court of Virginia

In this action for damages brought by parents arising from the alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, we consider whether the trial court correctly decided that the action was time-barred. Any cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress “accrues and the time limitation begins to run when the tort is committed.”
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly decided that this action was time-barred. The judgment below will be


Affirmed.

Mahony v. Becker, 246 Va. 209 (1993)Sept. 17, 1993 · Supreme Court of Virginia

She alleged that Townsend intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her by entering her personal and confidential data on a warrant that he knew, or should have known, was intended for another person. She alleged that Wright intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her by transferring her personal and confidential data from her driver’s license to Townsend, when Wright knew or should have known that the plaintiff was not Gwendolyn M. Jordan and that this information would be affixed to a warrant that would be the basis of a false arrest and imprisonment. The trial court considered memoranda and argument of counsel and entered an order dismissing plaintiff’s alleged causes of action for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation because those claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Code § 8.01-248. The plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against any of the defendants. The plaintiff’s purported cause of action for defamation is barred by the statute of limitations.

Jordan v. Shands, 255 Va. 492 (1998 )April 17, 1998 · Supreme Court of Virginia

In these two consolidated actions for (1) malicious prosecution, (2) abuse of process, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, we determine whether the motions for judgment are sufficient to state causes of action for each of these claims. W.W. Whitlock and his son John D. Whitlock, both of whom are lawyers, each filed a motion for judgment against another lawyer, Rae H. Ely, seeking to recover compensatory and punitive damages based on separate counts of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation. Later, each plaintiff added a fourth count alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court overruled Ely’s demurrer to all four counts of each motion for judgment, and Ely objected. We conclude that the trial court erred in overruling Ely’s demurrer to those counts which allege the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Ely v. Whitlock, 238 Va. 670 (1989)Nov. 10, 1989 · Supreme Court of Virginia

Out of 5, I looked out, 5 were dismissed. Not good for Mel. I probably put in more effort into researching this than she did.

For anyone Tl;Dr-ing, look at the first case's second citation. It single-handedly kills her case.

Melinda here can't understand English common law,

She barely understands basic English, lets not mention law.

 

[White Baby]

YOU LOST JOSHUA MOON
YOU FAILED JOSHUA MOON
YOU'RE DUMB JOSHUA MOON
YOU'RE THE DUMBEST LITIGANT EVER JOSHUA MOON
YOU'RE A FAILURE JOSHUA MOON

Are you still going to be crowing about this when you get 0 winnings for "emotional damages"?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Are you still going to be crowing about this when you get 0 winnings for "emotional damages"?

The default was entered, PERMANENTLY. The default judgment is simply an extension of that.

I'll give Mr. Joshua Moon his EYE FOR EYE as long as I can!

Fuck you Joshua Moon!

More about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. In Virginia, it was only used 44 times.




Russo v. White, 241 Va. 23 (1991)Jan. 11, 1991 · Supreme Court of Virginia


McDermott v. Reynolds, 260 Va. 98 (2000)June 9, 2000 · Supreme Court of Virginia


Mahony v. Becker, 246 Va. 209 (1993)Sept. 17, 1993 · Supreme Court of Virginia


Jordan v. Shands, 255 Va. 492 (1998 )April 17, 1998 · Supreme Court of Virginia


Ely v. Whitlock, 238 Va. 670 (1989)Nov. 10, 1989 · Supreme Court of Virginia

Out of 5, I looked out, 5 were dismissed. Not good for Mel. I probably put in more effort into researching this than she did.

For anyone Tl;Dr-ing, look at the first case's second citation. It single-handedly kills her case.



She barely understands basic English, lets not mention law.

The first thing we covered in 1L was IIED

Man, she's so delirious that she can't even make actual responses and just laughs like a fuckin child.
Is this what you teach your children? Is this the kind of show you show them is fine to be? Almost makes me hope Marshall takes the kids tbh

EYE FOR EYE is exactly what I teach my children

can't prove damages to her book sales due

That's factually inaccurate. Since you posted my book here. But I'm not giving my battle plan away, you can wait for the hearing.

I've been trying to look for a case where a stay-at-home mother proved damages in a defamation case and all I've found is cases where a stay-at-home mother was taken to court over defamation. Also, Melinda will have a hard time proving that being a stay-at-home mom is actually a job. The only real source of income she has is given to her by the government. No matter what Null or anyone in this thread (or Andrew's thread for that matter) can change the amount that is given to her. She can't prove damages to her book sales due to the fact she went to a vanity publisher and it's easy to show the court how they set up their business practices.

Hell the idea she was defamed could also be wrong since no one in her community liked her prior to either Andrew's thread or Melinda's thread existed. She had no reputation to harm, and any harm that could be argued was done by her by her over sharing on the internet and being a very unlikable person. Offensive or otherwise unpleasant statements against her are not defamatory either.

You don't have to prove financial damages for IIED, that's what you're missing

Hold your horses, woman. You’ve still got to convince Jones about the damages. Or is this manic outburst part of your evidence that your fee fees are so hurt you compulsively have to come on here to unstably ree at the big bad mean kiwis. Most of which probably aren’t even aware your thread exists. That’ll show ‘em!

The default is entered, PERMANENTLY. Default judgment is simply an extension of that.

Null at any point can contest this. Hell, if he needs a lawyer there are a few that are more than happy to help him out

Joshua Moon is a coward

That's an awful lot of "ha ha you lost" from someone who hasn't even won yet.

The default is entered, PERMANENTLY

Default judgment is simply an extension of that

"College success" what college success? You've done nothing with your life other than to pop out retards.

Graduating is success in an of itself. I have used my college education every single day of my life, including knowing how to search case law and sue the dumbest person ever Joshua Moon

That's right YOU LOST JOSHUA MOON

Melinda here can't understand English common law, she has no hope of understanding French laws. They have some fun rulings. Like how communicating false information is not a wrongful act.

The French don't make the best choices when it comes to politics and law

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

sue the dumbest person ever

Yes, in theory you can sue yourself, but why would you want to?

Graduating is success in an of itself. I have used my college education every single day of my life,

No, you haven't.If you did, you'd have a career.

including knowing how to search case law

Even when we give you case law to read you fail to do that.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The default was entered

Can be reversed. See Hughes v. Benjamin

PERMANENTLY

The default judgment is simply an extension of that.

I mean, they are two separate motions, but sure.

The first thing we covered in 1L was IIED

Notice how she didn't refute any of my points. That's because I am correct, and I provided citations. Russo v. White, 241 Va. 23 (1991) kills her case.

Also, let me repeat this citation from Virginia Supreme Court

“the intentional infliction of emotional distress,” sometimes called the tort of “outrage.”... Indeed, we have said recently that such torts are “not favored” in the law.

Yeah...if she really covered it as she claimed, she would have known not to use this shit. It rarely works.

But I'm not giving my battle plan away, you can wait for the hearing.

I doubt you have one, but I can't wait to see how you'll get the judge to agree to take 50k from a man that hasn't had a job in 4 years.

You don't have to prove financial damages for IIED, that's what you're missing

See here:

What you have to prove is:
1.That you suffered some sort of damages
2. That the court can make those damages go away
Since you asked 50 grand as a compensation, you will have to somehow prove that he caused you 50k worth of damages

It has to be bad enough to cause actual damages, and even then can fail

There is no claim, for example, that she had any objective physical injury caused by the stress, that she sought medical attention, that she was confined at home or in a hospital, or that she lost income.

All examples of a thing that would cause actual damages

it is insufficient for a defendant to have “acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal.” Restatement comment d. Even if a defendant “has intended to inflict emotional distress,” or his conduct can be “characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort,” the requirement of the second prong has not been satisfied.

Not only does it have to cause damages, but very specific ones only.

Like I said, Russo v. White, 241 Va. 23 (1991) Supreme Court of Virginia kills your case

The default is entered, PERMANENTLY. Default judgment is simply an extension of that.

The default is entered, PERMANENTLY

Default judgment is simply an extension of that

That's right YOU LOST JOSHUA MOON

Repeating it won't make it true.

including knowing how to search case law

Yet you failed every single time when asked for citations. If you actually were thought IIED and you graduated this badly, I'd sue your teachers if I were you. Clearly, it is some sort of malpractice.

The French don't make the best choices

On that, we can agree.

 

[White Baby]

The default was entered, PERMANENTLY. The default judgment is simply an extension of that.

I'll give Mr. Joshua Moon his EYE FOR EYE as long as I can!

Fuck you Joshua Moon!

The judge gave you a default judgement on the barest technicality and is probably just waiting to see how badly you fuck up asking for damages. Which you will, at which point you'll likely be awarded no damages and all you'll have is a default judgement that you won only because Null was lazy.

 

[Deadpool]

EYE FOR EYE is exactly what I teach my children

Yet more proof what a shitty parent you are. A gaggle of retarded niggers would be a better parent than you. At least their kids would be socialized.