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.

No need to explain. You just said it again. You dump your children off on other people to take care of them so you can do whatever you want

You're a bad parent
Whatever you say Melinda. How many times have you been evicted from your places? How much money and time do you waste on lawsuits that go no where when that money could be used on your children?

You have 732 pages is the FACT

"Showing people you are a narc" is still an allegation

Do you know what a FACT is?
I really can't believe someone as stupid as you actually exists.
 
I don't need to admit error where The Torah doesn't say there is error
So, you admit that you use Torah as shield then?
That's a hypothesis.

Do you have supporting FACTS?
You are a literal moron. It is a fact. This is further supported by your own admition of NPD traits.
More accurately it's called IIED
More accuratly it is called hurt fee fees or my favourite "not favored in the law" (as per Virginia's Supreme Court's Russo v. White case)
 
I know for a fact your husband is a wife beater, and yet you still married him. Then again he married you despite him being guy #9 that you've married.

Why do you keep calling Marshall my husband?

For what reasons is hitting a woman wrong?

And you're a little late on the husband discussion. I've had 2 husbands and 6 male concubines.




How many times have you been evicted from your places?

I've never been evicted.

I have one pending eviction case in the Supreme Court of VA because I challenged my landlord's policy in order to protect my children


How much money and time do you waste on lawsuits that go no where when that money could be used on your children?

How is it a waste of time and money when I have plans to return to law school?


So, you admit that you use Torah as shield then?


"His Truth is a shield and protection." (Ps. 91:4)






Traits is not synonymous with "Disorder"
 
How is it a waste of time and money when I have plans to return to law school?
You wont be able to go back to school because they'll have to test you to see if you retained any knowledge from you high school years. Given how stupid you are you wont be able to pass that even if you studied every course they'll test you on.
Traits is not synonymous with "Disorder"
Actually it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Useful_Mistake
For what reasons is hitting a woman wrong?


Edit: Ok, I should clarify, if for whatever reason you have to resort to violence to prove your point, like Marshall did, because like every other typical wetback he doesn't know how to walk away, you are not proving a point, you are forcing someone to submit to your point.
 
Last edited:
I've never been evicted
I believe you were evicted at least once. I think I remember you were complaining about that in a court document. I think you also sued the landlord, even though you were in two different states. Is that the same case that is allegedly in VA's Supreme Court?
How is it a waste of time and money when I have plans to return to law school?
Because the money and time could be better spent literally anywhere that isn't a person that lives outside of US, and who's forum is protected via 230

"His Truth is a shield and protection." (Ps. 91:4)
That's a yes, then. It's sad.
Traits is not synonymous with "Disorder"
Almost always having a trait in any form (be it sickness, disorder, etc), signifies a problem.
If the animal quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, eats what duck does, well....it's very likely a duck
 
  • Like
Reactions: super thug
I mailed off/filed a Motion to Strike first only against their Motion to Set Aside Default. That's the primer, so to speak. The Judge then has the ability to strike ALL or only a portion of their Motion to Set Aside Default.

The judge can either (a) GRANT or (b) GRANT IN PART or (c) and DENY IN PART or (d) DENY my Motion to Strike. Once he does that, I will then file a response to whatever the judge hasn't gutted out of their Motion to Set Aside Default.

If he strikes the whole thing I don't even have to respond, the Default still stands.

If he strikes only a part of it, I only have to respond to whatever is not striken.

If he denies my motion completely, then I have to prepare a lengthier response to all of their Motions

The Motion to Strike is a smart first maneuver because it can slim down what I need to respond to
You've omitted the possibility that the judge will GRANT the motion to set aside default and DENY AS MOOT your motion to strike.
Do you know what a FACT is?
A fact is that you're dumb.
 
Since I can't share my physical copy
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
page 669

Diagnostic Criteria
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
 
Since I can't share my physical copy
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
page 669

Diagnostic Criteria
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
Fits her like a glove
 
  • Like
Reactions: super thug
ou've omitted the possibility that the judge will GRANT the motion to set aside default and DENY AS MOOT your motion to strike.

That's not a possibility because I still have a legal right to file a response within 21 days.



Since I can't share my physical copy
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
page 669

Diagnostic Criteria
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration.
5. Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends).
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Hey, look at that, you are getting to closer to establishing FACTS.

#s that don't apply to me: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8

#s that apply to me: 3, 7 (I believe in conditional and limited empathy), and 9

Therefore, I cannot have NPD. I have narcissistic traits . To have NPD you have to have the majority of those


So you don't wanna get a job while having 6 kids, but you wanna go to law school? (despite not making it before)
That's pretty autistic.

Who said I didn't make it through law school? Where did you hear that from?


Almost always having a trait in any form (be it sickness, disorder, etc), signifies a problem

Depends if it agrees with Elohim's Words

Do you think that humans are wiser than Elohim? That humans can just reinvent morality?


I believe you were evicted at least once

I abandoned a property and then was served an Unlawful Detainer after I moved out. We settled it with money. Never was actually evicted.



You wont be able to go back to school because they'll have to test you to see if you retained any knowledge from you high school years. Given how stupid you are you wont be able to pass that even if you studied every course they'll test you on.

Actually I went to Appalachian School of Law on a merit based scholarship and I can re-apply.

They have a female Dean. A feminist one :cunningpepe:




Edit: Ok, I should clarify, if for whatever reason you have to resort to violence to prove your point, like Marshall did, because like every other typical wetback he doesn't know how to walk away, you are not proving a point, you are forcing someone to submit to your point.

Why should me be required to "walk away" if a woman is attacking or fighting with them?
 
My personal opinions have nothing to do with academic applications.

See how that works?
Your opinions may not, but your background definitely does, an impoverished woman who's known for being a vexatious litigant and has almost no presence outside of that who has falsely claimed to be cited by scholars. Hell, even barring KiwiFarms, if they found your Academia page you'd've fucked yourself.
 
Your opinions may not, but your background definitely does, an impoverished woman who's known for being a vexatious litigant and has almost no presence outside of that who has falsely claimed to be cited by scholars. Hell, even barring KiwiFarms, if they found your Academia page you'd've fucked yourself.

The Kiwi Farms page existed before I applied and I still got in. So did my Academia page and I was still admitted.

Intelligent people don't go around trying to sabotage others who have different political and religious idelogies.

Too big a thought for you, I know, I know.
 
T
The Kiwi Farms page existed before I applied and I still got in. So did my Academia page and I was still admitted.

Intelligent people don't go around trying to sabotage others who have different political and religious idelogies.

Too big a thought for you, I know, I know.
Then where's the evidence that you got in? There's already been substantial evidence before that you were reject and you failed the bar exam, so if you don't prove any of this wrong, what reason do we have to believe you? Almost a year of arguing with us here and you still don't understand the fundamentals of a fuckin' argument.
 
T

Then where's the evidence that you got in? There's already been substantial evidence before that you were reject and you failed the bar exam, so if you don't prove any of this wrong, what reason do we have to believe you? Almost a year of arguing with us here and you still don't understand the fundamentals of a fuckin' argument.
Or a debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Useful_Mistake
Back