Yes, in fact, that's exactly what Null's attorney advised him to do. Someone asked him today while he was streaming about the suit, and Null couldn't say anything about it other than acknowledge he was being sued.Don't good attorneys usually advise their clients to shut the fuck up during (and about) active cases?
Whatever.
Ah, but Mel has a magic fix for that! She plans to just lie to the Court, and say 'wasnt me posting on the thread', when in fact she has sent lengthy emails discussing the case (AND discussing her posting on this thread) to numerous Kiwis from the very same email address (MLScott@GMU.edu or whatever) that she listed as hers in her retarded filings. Wonder if she actually thinks THOSE wont be forwarded to both the Court AND Dear Feeder's lawyer? Or haven't been already?
Except Melinda isn’t a good attorney, she’s a fucking moron. She seems to be way too narcissistic to keep her damn mouth shut, which is one of many reasons why she gets her ass kicked in court. Well that and her apparent complete lack of understanding of the law.Don't good attorneys usually advise their clients to shut the fuck up during (and about) active cases?
Whatever.
Key word here being "potentially"
Nah, mel, you fit all the requirments
Interestingly, the judge might rule on it before then.
Truth is an absolute defense. You can't defame someone with truth
What the fuck does that even mean?
Usually even good ones do.Don't good attorneys usually advise their clients to shut the fuck up during (and about) active cases?
Whatever.
Silly goy. Don't you know that Linda's mountain jew Torah makes her immune to goyim legal hearsay?Don't good attorneys usually advise their clients to shut the fuck up during (and about) active cases?
Whatever.
Still workin' on the script for the MelBOT, not sure when it'll be ready but I hope you'll be thoroughly entertained when it's available.
Continuing to post here significantly diminishes your standing for IIED. How can you be a victim of IIED when you can just choose to not interact here? Remember, the court isn't punitive, the court makes right. A potential remedy for being made fun of online is to just not go to the places making fun of you. The judge isn't going to issue a court order restricting our 1A rights to call you a dumb fucking cunt.
Oh you poor, sad retard. Of course you can. Any citizen can send a judge mail, esp if they aren't a party in the case. Judge can then ask you (without acknowedging he was tipped off) if you yourself posted here. If you lie, he'll throw out the case. That said, it will be MUCH more entertaining to send it to Josh's lawyer, and have it entered into evidence, with the same result.
Wow. You really no read the good. A HIPAA violation only occurs if the sharer is a HIPAA covered entity, say a health care provider or employee of an insurance company. So for example, if my pal Bob left his info about his GERD laying around and I showed it to all of our other friends on Facebook, no HIPAA violation has occurred.
Wow, something about that name really aggravates you. That's the second or third time you have brought it up. Maybe they like shiitake tops in their cooking, possibly enjoy psilocybin based hallucinogens, or maybe think the phallic double entendre is a little titillating. Surely it can't be offending your prudish sensibilities. What it would have to do with discernment, much like the name of the cult we're all in, is a mystery.
here IS a new tort meant to cover what she speaks of, but there's little case law, and damned if I'm gonna tell her what it's called.
Judge ordered you to respond. You did. He might feel like that's good enough and do a rulling. At the very least, he will make a judgment on your motion to strike before the 31st.
Speaking of IIED, have you finally looked over the caselaw I showed that kills your case (Russo v. White, 241 va. 23 (1991) )? You might actually learn what counts as a victim of IIED if you read it (spoiler, you don't).
The fact that you disagree with what a fact is, bears no meaning on the fact that we can, and have, looked over the requirements, and found that you fit. Good Faith belief is a defence in regards to defamation (Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (1968 ). ). And, in any case, you likely count as at least limited purpose public figure, so, really we can say whatever we want. Few reasons as to why you might be a publuc figure can be found here
It only applies to health companies, not private citizens. We can leak all the info we want. This all doesn't matter, because we haven't shared your medical files regardless.
Nope, he was completely correct.
While you can email it to the judge, yes, normally things like that are not accepted(there is nothing stopping judge from reading said email and questioning you over its validity). Regardless, Null's lawyer can, and has, include/d them in his motions.
Literally nothing in here (at least since I joined this thread) can be used as an exhibit for anything else than to show how mentally deranged you are. You think this is defamatory? Sue me.
I sincerly doubt it. You have mentioned that all of us are trolls you don't believe in. It would then be logical to assume that if we are liars/trolls here, were are in the emails as well.
And, that, could be used as an exhibit. This is basically an admission of more comming frivalous lawsuits.
No, but in law, they could be used as a sign of harassment, had she not replied and continued to make conversation.
In her defence, her IIED claims are not against the forum, but against Moon, and three(?) other forum users. Then again, she is interacting with all of them including her supposed abusers, so....yeah, you got a point.
Honestly, the only thing you need to read is Russo v White, to find out why IIED almost never works. Like the Supreme Court of Virginia said, the court is "not favoured in law".
Best possible result:
That would be extremely hilarious. I'd pay to see her reaction, but sadly it's unlikely that the judge would recommend her to listen to us.
And like Null's lawyer pointed out, her motion to strike contained her arguments for her response. The judge might decide that the matter has been fully briefed. You don't necessarily get the right to file a second response, repeating all your BS arguments and throwing a few extra noodles at the wall just in case, just because you fucked up and filed something that you incorrectly called "motion to strike" instead of calling it a response.
