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.

You're advocating adapting to unethical behavior to gain a benefit.
Yes, dipshit. The benefit not only benefits you, it benefits your children. Imagine if you being even slightly nicer and more intelligent meant the difference between winning or losing this lawsuit? Are you literally that retarded and stubborn that you'll pass up a better future for your kids because you don't want to be nice and play with the big boys?

Also you didn't respond to my verses, as per usual. Disregarding the Messiah's words like always!
 
Did you even read the section on Motions to Dismiss? No, you didn't.
Yes. Did you? "Other motions to dismiss arise under particular statutes and have elements and burdens of proof that derive from the statute" does not mean that you can use a motion to dismiss o n anything other than a complaint or cross-complaint. It means that you can make a motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons such as "lack of subject matter jurisdiction", "lack of personal jurisdiction", "forum non conveniens (improper venue)", "insufficient process", "insufficient service of process" and "failure to state a claim." It's Virginia's equivalent to FRCP Rule 12(b), where Rule 12(b)(1)-(7) are all separate grounds to dismiss a complaint.
 
Yes. Did you? "Other motions to dismiss arise under particular statutes and have elements and burdens of proof that derive from the statute" does not mean that you can use a motion to dismiss o n anything other than a complaint or cross-complaint. It means that you can make a motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons such as "lack of subject matter jurisdiction", "lack of personal jurisdiction", "forum non conveniens (improper venue)", "insufficient process", "insufficient service of process" and "failure to state a claim." It's Virginia's equivalent to FRCP Rule 12(b), where Rule 12(b)(1)-(7) are all separate grounds to dismiss a complaint.
The dumb bitch thinks she's some kind of genius and can't even understand plain English. Absolutely idiot. The only thing more retarded than what comes out of her cunt is what comes out of her mouth.
 
Not factually accurate. You just didn't catch it. I could point it out, but hey, I'd rather laugh at you
I'm well aware that you mistakenly believe that the court is biased against you because you're pro se.

It's not. You're just retarded. It's actually the opposite. A real lawyer filing trash like you wrote would get even less leniency than you've received, because they ought to know better. They might even get sanctioned. Not that I'm saying you won't get sanctioned! It's entirely possible that you'll exhaust the court's patience such that it eventually decides to sanction you for one of your frivolous filings.
 
I have a golden heart and a bright soul.
Every one knows that the most golden of hearts and the brightest of souls are absolutely incapable of forgiveness or generosity, and spend life thinking of nothing but revenge and spite, even keeping log books of slights received by a spouse.
 
@TamarYaelBatYah so about this eye for eye thing, got a question, a hypothetic question about it:

Imagine one day you decided to have a deep drag of a doobie (or smoke a bong, or whatever it is you decide to do with cannabis that you find Kosher) . Say it's legal where you are and you celebrate. But, oops, you need diapers down the road and there's no marshal around to get em for you. So you drive down the road yourself under the influence. Then BAM you're in a car accident, and, oh dear, you killed some poor schmucks first born son

So he takes you to court, and the judge, who also decided to smoke a joint, let's say a lot of joints for this to be plausible. The judge looks at your essays, finds this "eye for eye" thing to be swell, and rule that since you are responsible for the death of some poor dude's son, to pay equally he should have the right to your first born sons life...

How would you handle it? Would you accept it, give up your son and hold to your crazy little principles, or would you fight back and try to save your sons life? Or would you just try to twist things with text wall essays while flailing pathetically?
 
Last edited:
even keeping log books of slights received by a spouse.
Not to mention strangers on the internet, to the degree she tries to get forum owner to give up on their dox through court. (Even though Null doesn't even store identifying data from us since even him doesn't wanna know who we are). Real book o'grudges stuff, that dwarven stuff isn't healthy to humans. And screeching that you're not allowed to forgive anyone, for any slight, ever. I wonder if she's four foot tall, has industrious nature, needs alcohol to get thorough working day and grows magnificent beard.
 
@TamarYaelBatYah so about this eye for eye thing, got a question, a hypothetic question about it:

Imagine one day you decided to have a deep drag of a doobie. Say it's legal where you are and you celebrate. But, oops, you need diapers down the road and there's no marshal around to get em for you. So you drive down the road yourself under the influence. Then BAM you're in a car accident, and, oh dear, you killed some poor schmucks first born son

So he takes you to court, and the judge, who also decided to smoke a joint, let's say a lot of joints for this to be plausible. The judge looks at your essays, finds this "eye for eye" thing to be swell, and rule that since you are responsible for the death of some poor dude's son, to pay equally he should have the right to your first born sons life...

How would you handle it? Would you accept it, give up your son and hold to your crazy little principles, or would you fight back and try to save your sons life? Or would you just try to twist things with te
How much do you wanna bet me that it would somehow be the fault of the patriarchy?
 
Not to mention strangers on the internet, to the degree she tries to get forum owner to give up on their dox through court. (Even though Null doesn't even store identifying data from us since even him doesn't wanna know who we are). Real book o'grudges stuff, that dwarven stuff isn't healthy to humans. And screeching that you're not allowed to forgive anyone, for any slight, ever. I wonder if she's four foot tall, has industrious nature, needs alcohol to get thorough working day and grows magnificent beard.
It's an okay Magic Item in Warhammer Fantasy though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obliviousbeard
I wasn't raised in Anglo culture. I have nothing in common with mainstream Anglo white people.
NEWSFLASH: not all lighter colored people are the same kind of white
Whatever, cracker. Trying to appropriate cultures besides Judaism, on top of everything else. Height of entitlement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viridian
Nick's trying to hook Drex up with some "Jewish feminist" named Melinda.

1608281548903.png


Apparently she was on his show Tuesday night? Not sure who that could be about. It's certainly not our Melinda... I'd hardly call her a feminist.
 
No, you just suck at law.

Yes, cite the website that is going bankrupt, nobody wants to buy, and has never once cared about facts (elevator story, anyone?)

New filling by Null. His lawyer points out something we all did, that motions like that are unlikely to be granted. He further rips apart her motion.

Few laughs by the lawyer

View attachment 1781638
View attachment 1781639
View attachment 1781651
Moon's lawyer agrees with me that Mel can't read her own citacions
View attachment 1781644
Null's lawyer explained how Mel misrepressented her caselaw, but did not harshy call out her on that. Sad.
funny, looks like josh’s lawyer cited the exact same rule for motions to strike as I did.
Wasn’t Melinda the one calling me stupid and presumptuous before?
 
Last edited:
Not accurate. Motion to Dismiss is not used only for Complaints.

"Other motions to dismiss arise under particular statutes and have elements and burdens of proof that derive from the statute"

Educational content supporting claim: Shelley-dispositive.pdf (vtla.us)
My god, Mel, learn to read. The article, and the rule it's citing, all talk about the initial complaint, I.E. the start of a lawsuit.
There's no such thing as the court "feeling generous".
There is actually. It influences everything courts do from overlooking small mistakes, to commiting outright illegal acts to hurt you. See USA v Stone for example
Because doing the ethical thing is always the right thing to do
But that doesn't always happen, now does it? Murder is not right, but Baltimore (a city in US) has almost as high of a murder rate as the entirety of venezuela
 
I got bored with this thread way back at the beginning of the year, so I missed the start of the latest lolsuit and only came back this week.

I finally read the complaint.

Damn.

When your complaint is worse than anything produced by Russell Greer, you've got a lot of problems.

You're the same person that tried to say there was no exception to CDA 230 Immunity without referring to Nemet and Zeran

You can say whatever about my Complaint. My responses are coming via snail mail and you can see the myriad of case law in support of my Complaint

I'm not giving anything away for now.


Every one knows that the most golden of hearts and the brightest of souls are absolutely incapable of forgiveness or generosity, and spend life thinking of nothing but revenge and spite, even keeping log books of slights received by a spouse.

There's nowhere in The Torah written a human being has to forgive another human being. No one can forgive another person's sin except Elohim.



Yes, dipshit. The benefit not only benefits you, it benefits your children. Imagine if you being even slightly nicer and more intelligent meant the difference between winning or losing this lawsuit? Are you literally that retarded and stubborn that you'll pass up a better future for your kids because you don't want to be nice and play with the big boys?

Also you didn't respond to my verses, as per usual. Disregarding the Messiah's words like always!

You aren't speaking of the Messiah. You're trying to infuse Paul's words onto The Torah.
There is actually. It influences everything courts do from overlooking small mistakes, to commiting outright illegal acts to hurt you. See USA v Stone for example

See, you still don't understand the premise of ethics. It doesn't matter if the opposing party wins in court or someone does something illegal to trip up your case. It's not about winning, it's about maintaining an ethical posture.

Because you forget that after all of us have lived on this earth and stood before secular human courts, you all will have to stand before The Creator and be judged for eternity. When I show up before Elohim on The Day of Judgment, I will come with a clean slate of moral deeds. You folks, not so much.

Eternal courts await us all.
 
See, you still don't understand the premise of ethics. It doesn't matter if the opposing party wins in court or someone does something illegal to trip up your case. It's not about winning, it's about maintaining an ethical posture.

Because you forget that after all of us have lived on this earth and stood before secular human courts, you all will have to stand before The Creator and be judged for eternity. When I show up before Elohim on The Day of Judgment, I will come with a clean slate of moral deeds. You folks, not so much.

Eternal courts await us all
That's a hilarious cope for losing a court case
 
You're the same person that tried to say there was no exception to CDA 230 Immunity without referring to Nemet and Zeran
I don't recall discussing Section 230 immunity here, but I may have. However, even if I did, anything you've seen from me here is shitposting, not filings. That's an important distinction. You allege you have a couple hundred grand on the line in your prayer for relief; I have some internet stickers. How have you fared versus Section 230 defenses so far?
 
Back