@TamarYaelBatYah
Hey Melinda. Just wanted to let you know that in the United States the practical application of law extends beyond the black letter words on the page and is heavily dependent on previous use. This is called Precedent. While its clear you have access at the library to "Rules for Civil procedure" you may want to actually look at how its been enforced.
Luckily I have access to this thing called WestLaw, because unlike you, I actually got into a Law School, and since it is in the top 30 in the nation I get a free subscription.
In the Federal rules for Civil procedure the Motion to Strike is rule 12(f). It is one of the oldest rules that have yet to be amended. It is also almost never used.
To summarize why, Judge Ellen Hollander in her opinion for
Blevins v Piatt (citing fourth circuit precedent no less. Hint: that's the circuit you are filing in) stated that "Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor because striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic remedy and because it is often sought by the movant simply as a dilatory tactic.’"
"Dilatory Tactic"
@Null perhaps you should begin referring to all of Melinda's suits this way.
Judge Hollander set out a very clear and simple methodology for determining standards for rule 12(f) motions that might help you in your motion. She first wrote that the court has wide discretion and that the pleading must be viewed in the light most favorable to the pleader, sounds good for you right? Read on.
Rule 12(f) motions ordinarily “will be denied unless the matter under challenge has 'no possible relation to the controversy and may prejudice the other party.'"
Blevins v. Piatt, No. CV ELH-15-1551, 2015 WL 7878504, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2015)
"a motion to strike a defense “should not be granted when the sufficiency of the defense depends upon disputed issues of fact or unclear questions of law."
Blevins v. Piatt, No. CV ELH-15-1551, 2015 WL 7878504, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2015)
Good luck arguing that Null's lawyer discussing improper venue, section 230, and your literal claim "BEARS NO POSSIBLE RELATION TO THE CONTROVERSY"
Also good luck arguing that those responses don't speak to very obvious "unclear questions of law" (unclear to you anyway) or disputed facts.
Here is a link to the case that anyone should be able to access so you might read it yourself and perhaps learn a bit about what you are allegedly studying.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/di...e/1:2015cv01551/318416/21/0.pdf?ts=1449312644
What Null's lawyer included in his motion are direct and relevant legal defenses and questions regarding not just your plethora of schizophrenic claims, but also the basic procedure upon which you (failed to) file them. They are inextricably linked to your allegations and therefore clearly fall under this standard for denying any sort of motion to strike that you may be contemplating.
Just because you read through a bit of black letter law does not make you a lawyer and the longer you harbor under this delusion that the application of law is a library visit away and that nothing extends deeper than what you read on the page you will continue to be unsuccessful in your suits.
I will conclude with a line from the case that I find especially relevant to you.
"In general, Piatt seems to labor under the misconception that an allegation in a complaint automatically renders the allegation admissible at trial."
Blevins v. Piatt, No. CV ELH-15-1551, 2015 WL 7878504, at *6 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2015)
"In general Melinda seems to labor under the misconception that a defense against her allegation automatically renders that defense inadmissible."
