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.

[Useful_Mistake]

We all know what she's going to do. The exact same thing all over again, expecting different results.

Next time "with prejudice", huh?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

Since I don't see a screenshot, here is one from pacer
View attachment 1794369

@TamarYaelBatYah what are you gonna do?

First I need to identify whether or not they did this Order before or after receiving my Motion to Dismiss the Request for Extension of Time.

Otherwise, I'm going to appeal it to the higher court because I clearly stated in the Motion to Compel what discovery requests he didn't respond to ("Request for Production of Documents"). I may file a Writ of Mandamus on this one.

Maybe if you indulged in a little more codependency you'd have a decent man that stuck with you instead of washing out nine times going on ten now.

Now you're advocating people be Codependents. Wowzers

You strongly imply it.


It doesn't "bother" me. It is pertinent for two reasons: (a) it is laughable; and (b) it is consistent with NPD.



So who is giving you any feedback other than KF?



The problem with that claim is that: (a) I don't think you have learned the Torah; (b) you have the ability to make any verse mean anything you want it to mean; and therefore; (c) even if you did learn all of the Torah you would not become a virtuous person.



That's the expected and intended effect of you redefining words.


Your reading comprehension is failing you. A ger is a goy, a non-Jew that is a sojourner, a foreigner, a stranger.



Again your reading comprehension is failing you. Read the article that you linked.

View attachment 1794119
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-ezra/
(Click to enlarge.)

Saadia died well before Ibn Ezra was born: Saadia Gaon (882-942) vs. Ibn Ezra (1089-1164)

It was impossible for Saadia to mentor Ibn Ezra in halakha because he was dead. Ibn Ezra was influenced by Saadia's books on numerous things including liturgical poetry but he rejected his exegetical method in its entirety.

View attachment 1794250
Source: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lectur...northern-france-introduction-spanish-exegesis
The quoted text is a translation of text sourced from Encyclopedia Mikra’it, Tanakh — Parshanut, p. 660.
(Click image to enlarge)

View attachment 1794257
Source: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-13-r-avraham-ibn-ezra-part-i
(Click image to enlarge)

Even if you insist on categorising Ibn Ezra as a Talmudic sage he was doing his own thing. He was a poor vagabond and he rejected conventional methods of Torah interpretation. The original point was that even he was of the view that Leviticus 19:15 is about judges in courts.



I know, I stated that. Re-read what I posted.



This is a ludicrous opinion which you would be entirely unable to defend.

You're just promoting Talmudic garbage over and over. PASS

 

[White Baby]

Now you're advocating people be Codependents. Wowzers

I'm a fan of healthy marriages, you're reading your own mortal terror of vulnerability and ego complex into it. Get some therapy, babe.

You're just promoting Talmudic garbage over and over. PASS

If this is how you respond to someone who knows his shit trying to educate you, you must have been the absolute least favorite student of all at your shithole college.

 

[TheShedCollector]

Otherwise, I'm going to appeal it to the higher court because I clearly stated in the Motion to Compel what discovery requests he didn't respond to ("Request for Production of Documents"). I may file a Writ of Mandamus on this one.

On you go toots.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

First I need to identify whether or not they did this Order before or after receiving my Motion to Dismiss the Request for Extension of Time.

This hardly matters both because the motion to compel was dismissed, and the motion to extend time was granted. But, no they probably have not seen your Motion, since it is not in Pacer yet.

Otherwise, I'm going to appeal it to the higher court because I clearly stated in the Motion to Compel what discovery requests he didn't respond to ("Request for Production of Documents"). I may file a Writ of Mandamus on this one.

I believe you were to identify each of your request for information that he did not follow up on, i.e. he did not give IP addresses for this user. He did not do that. Basically, I believe they are asking you to be as detailed as possible.

Now you're advocating people be Codependents

What's the problem with that, bar it somehow magically being sexist?

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

If this is how you respond to someone who knows his shit trying to educate you, you must have been the absolute least favorite student of all at your shithole college.

He knows The Talmud and Rabbinical Judaism. Toxic indoctrination, to say the least

I'm a fan of healthy marriages, you're reading your own mortal terror of vulnerability and ego complex into it. Get some therapy, babe.

You're a fan of Codependency (patriarchy) and you're trying to advocate that it is "healthy". You are the one who needs therapy.

I believe you were to identify each of your request for information that he did not follow up on, i.e. he did not give IP addresses for this user. He did not do that. Basically, I believe they are asking you to be as detailed as possible.

Based on what case law? I have to go search the case law to see if they can even ask that.

But yeah, in all honesty, my time may be better spent just detailing every single nitty gritty thing. Just re-file it.

I have a bunch of stuff to work on and file. Better get busy!

 

[LonesomeDud]

That same tired argument has been played out over and over on this thread. You sound pathetic

You sound rude, but I try to be broadminded, if not downright dismissive of obvious facts. I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[Toasty]

You're a fan of Codependency (patriarchy) and you're trying to advocate that it is "healthy". You are the one who needs therapy.

Why is codependency necessarily patriarchal? It can occur between any pair or group of people, and doesn't make any one of them superior or inferior, or dominant or submissive, just CO, meaning with, or together. Not necessarily unhealthy. Actually needed in some relationships.

 

[White Baby]

He knows The Talmud and Rabbinical Judaism. Toxic indoctrination, to say the least

He "knows" the Talmud and is familiar with rabbinical Judaism, therefore everything he says is invalid? That's not how it works. Actual theologians (not you) study multiple religions even if they only follow one. The fact that he's familiar with both and you're not makes him the authority.

You're a fan of Codependency (patriarchy) and you're trying to advocate that it is "healthy". You are the one who needs therapy.

Let's revisit this argument in five years if you're not dead from stress and see which one of us has been more personally successful.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Based on what case law?

I wouldn't know given they didn't provide one.

I have to go search the case law to see if they can even ask that.

Here is an example on how it should look like that I found online. Either way, while I assume they can request this, I don't know any caselaw on the top of my head regarding this.

But yeah, in all honesty, my time may be better spent just detailing every single nitty gritty thing. Just re-file it.

Yeah, probably.

 

[talk talk talk]

I logged into PACER and grabbed a bunch of the small documents in the case (notice of motion, affidavit of service; stuff like that) and made sure it was accessible via RECAP now.

You should be able to get all the filed docs execept the IFP petition here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17330622/scott-v-wise-county-department-of-social-services/

 

[Kosher Salt]

I logged into PACER and grabbed a bunch of the small documents in the case (notice of motion, affidavit of service; stuff like that) and made sure it was accessible via RECAP now.

You should be able to get all the filed docs execept the IFP petition here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17330622/scott-v-wise-county-department-of-social-services/

Is document 34 (MINUTE ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel) available, or has it not been digitally filed yet?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Is document 34 (MINUTE ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel) available, or has it not been digitally filed yet?

The judge did not attach any documents when submitting to PACER

 

[redcent]

First I need to identify whether or not they did this Order before or after receiving my Motion to Dismiss the Request for Extension of Time.

Otherwise, I'm going to appeal it to the higher court because I clearly stated in the Motion to Compel what discovery requests he didn't respond to ("Request for Production of Documents"). I may file a Writ of Mandamus on this one.

Mel, what would you even do if, by some christmas miracle you got our dox and medical records?

Now you're advocating people be Codependents. Wowzers

Why not just say someone hurt you and you have trust issues and don't feel up to depending on men?

Do that and embrace being single instead of looking for another dick and thinking you can pussy-whip him

 

[Null]

 

[Useful_Mistake]

View attachment 1794589

That's fast. It's not even in PACER yet.

About her filling, none of us "scan" her mail envelopes. It's included when we download her motions.

 

[Null]

That's fast. It's not even in PACER yet.
View attachment 1794602

yes I tend to hear about these things directly for some reason.

 

[lolwatagain]

First I need to identify whether or not they did this Order before or after receiving my Motion to Dismiss the Request for Extension of Time.

Otherwise, I'm going to appeal it to the higher court because I clearly stated in the Motion to Compel what discovery requests he didn't respond to ("Request for Production of Documents"). I may file a Writ of Mandamus on this one.

>Motion to Dismiss the Request for Extension of Time
I can only imagine the look on the Clerk's face when they read that. A motion to dismiss on a fucking request for extension of time that was already granted.

Also, you you didn't state which discovery requests in your motion:

You need to state the actual discovery requests so the magistrate can determine if the motion to compel is justified, or if the discovery requests are improper.

That's fast. It's not even in PACER yet.
View attachment 1794602

There's no header, so it looks like that was the copy served on counsel instead of the submitted copy.

 

[talk talk talk]

Is document 34 (MINUTE ORDER denying 31 Motion to Compel) available, or has it not been digitally filed yet?

Minute orders don't have documents. They're entered directly in the minutes like when a judge sustains or overrrules an objection orally.

 

[Shaka Brah]

View attachment 1794589

Accusing us of gangstalking now? Interesting take.