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.

TamarYaelBatYah said:
I didn't file it against the court. Just be patient. It should arrive to the courthouse today. Hopefully the clerk will file it today on Pacer.




Sadism and Trolls are proper nouns here so they would be capitalized


Fucking serious?!

That's your KF trolls anthem

Fucking hypocrites
Click to expand...
Reset the clock boys, she lasted around 12 hours this time. Have a good sleep?
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: B’Elanna, ConSluttant and AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Motion to strike. It's long and consists of her whining about Moon's lawyer, braging about her "increadible" lawsuit history, whining about Patriarchy, and making incoherant and stupid arguments.

Btw, Mel, Park Corp does not apply. Moon did give a valid explanation as to why he did not receive his mail, that being increadibly poor service.

It also doesn't apply, because in that case mail was received, was admited to being received, and only after that lost. It's different for Null
Lexington submitted only the affidavit of Rachel Rivlin, Lexington's vice president and associate general counsel. Rivlin's affidavit acknowledged that Park's summons and complaint were received in Lexington's mail room on May 20, 1985, and that a Lexington employee signed the postal return receipt for them. Thereafter, the summons and complaint disappeared
Click to expand...
I would have expected even basic reading of the caselaw cited
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Botchy Galoop, Troonologist PhD, CyrusKissFanClub and 8 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Motion to strike. It's long and consists of her whining about Moon's lawyer, braging about her "increadible" lawsuit history, and making incoherant and stupid arguments.

Btw, Mel, Park Corp does not apply. Moon did give a valid explanation as to why he did not receive his mail, that being increadibly poor service.

It also doesn't apply, because in that case mail was received, was admited to being received, and only after that lost. It's different for Null

I would have expected even basic reading of the caselaw cited
Click to expand...
I'm fucking. Wow. I'd love to see the look on the judges face when he reads this part.

Screenshot_20201210-095000_Drive.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Lunacy
  • Feels
Reactions: AlexJonesGotMePregnant, WangOfDamocles, Troonologist PhD and 14 others
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, CyrusKissFanClub and super thug
Useful_Mistake said:
Motion to strike. It's long and consists of her whining about Moon's lawyer, braging about her "increadible" lawsuit history, and making incoherant and stupid arguments.

Btw, Mel, Park Corp does not apply. Moon did give a valid explanation as to why he did not receive his mail, that being increadibly poor service.

It also doesn't apply, because in that case mail was received, was admited to being received, and only after that lost. It's different for Null

I would have expected even basic reading of the caselaw cited
Click to expand...
My God. That read like a Greer filing, only with breast feeding instead of muh disability.
Drinking game idea. Have a shot every time she brings it up. Also patriarchy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, CyrusKissFanClub, ConSluttant and 5 others
Spergichu said:
Didn't she try to get Marshall to meet us irl to fight a few months back?
Click to expand...
I've heard this mentioned a few times, but I haven't seen anything supporting that, bar recollections from other kiwis
 
“Defendant, by councel, seeks to bring attention to Plaintiff Scott's filing history in federal and state court...Counsel's choice of words leave some ambiguity also his intent but the motive of Mr.Hardin seems to be aimed at creating bias against the Plaintiff as a pro-se litigant who has had some prior dismissals”

That’s because Defendant, by use of a functioning brain, can tell that you are a fucking moron who has had 90% of your cases dismissed, regardless of how you frames those losses.

Now, I’m going to sit back and enjoy the inevitable sperging from you, because in studying you, I’ve found that you just can’t handle people calling you out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troonologist PhD, CyrusKissFanClub, Slimy Time and 3 others
TamarYaelBatYah said:
I didn't file it against the court. Just be patient. It should arrive to the courthouse today. Hopefully the clerk will file it today on Pacer.
Click to expand...
I assume, then, that you're referring to your request for production of documents?

1607624220294.png

First of all, that has nothing to do with the fact that the clerk's entry of default is not a default judgement.

And secondly, Josh was not served that request, nor was any such request certified by the court. Pro se plaintiffs cannot issue requests for discovery, they must ask the court for leave to request it. You didn't, the court didn't give you leave, and any request for discovery that you did issue was therefore not valid.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Viridian and ConSluttant
I looked over the motion again...did Mel forget to explain why the court has jurisdiction over someone living in Ukraine? Closest she got, maybe, was when she talked about his listed mail adress in the "contact" form
Kosher Salt said:
Pro se plaintiffs cannot issue requests for discovery, they must ask the court for leave to request it. You didn't, the court didn't give you leave, and any request for discovery that you did issue was therefore not valid.
Click to expand...
The court technically did allow her.
Screenshot_20201210-202250_Drive.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Kosher Salt said:
Pro se plaintiffs cannot issue requests for discovery, they must ask the court for leave to request it. You didn't, the court didn't give you leave, and any request for discovery that you did issue was therefore not valid.
Click to expand...

The court granted me leave. Look back in the documents. It was in an Order. End of October-ish.


Useful_Mistake said:
I looked over the motion again...did Mel forget to explain why the court has jurisdiction over someone living in Ukraine? Closest she got, maybe, was when she talked about his listed mail adress in the "contact" form

The court technically did allow her.
View attachment 1779071
Click to expand...

Since his jurisdiction defense is in his Motion to Dismiss, I will answer that second

Sir Dank-a-Lot said:
I’ve found that you just can’t handle people calling you out
Click to expand...
🖕🖕🖕Minimizing
 
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Autistic
Reactions: kcbbq, Viridian, Deadpool and 7 others
TamarYaelBatYah said:
The court granted me leave. Look back in the documents. It was in an Order. End of October-ish.




Since his jurisdiction defense is in his Motion to Dismiss, I will answer that second


🖕🖕🖕Minimizing
Click to expand...
Guess we won't be starving after all. What a surprise. No one could have predicted this. Wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkAlien, Shaka Brah, Chariot Of Mara and 1 other person
Kosher Salt said:
And did your request for discovery comply with FRCP 26(d)(1) and 26(f)?
Click to expand...

Yes
Useful_Mistake said:
Motion to strike. It's long and consists of her whining about Moon's lawyer, braging about her "increadible" lawsuit history, and making incoherant and stupid arguments.

Btw, Mel, Park Corp does not apply. Moon did give a valid explanation as to why he did not receive his mail, that being increadibly poor service.

It also doesn't apply, because in that case mail was received, was admited to being received, and only after that lost. It's different for Null

I would have expected even basic reading of the caselaw cited
Click to expand...
Toasty said:
My God. That read like a Greer filing, only with breast feeding instead of muh disability.
Drinking game idea. Have a shot every time she brings it up. Also patriarchy.
Click to expand...

Rule 9(b)

(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

Useful_Mistake said:
It was in his motion to set aside as well
View attachment 1779168

Also, are you gonna address the fact that you failed to read the caselaw you cited?
Click to expand...

He cited only Payne in the Motion to Set Aside. Again, remember, my first action is a Motion to Strike against the Motion to Set Aside. Then whatever remains, I will file a Response to.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
Reactions: kcbbq, Viridian, Deadpool and 4 others
TamarYaelBatYah said:
Rule 9(b)

(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.
Click to expand...
1. How is that relevant?
2. "May be alleged" not "must be"
TamarYaelBatYah said:
He cited only Payne in the Motion to Set Aside. Again, remember, my first action is a Motion to Strike against the Motion to Set Aside. Then whatever remains, I will file a Response to.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you dodged one of my questions, and partially answered another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back