That's the complete opposite of what the court said. It basically said that all your arguments for service are defective.
View attachment 1934193
View attachment 1934195
Give me one fault with the judge's decision and one caselaw that would counter it, and I will tell you why you are wrong on both accounts.
He has lived in Europe for quite a while now, that is not a secret to anyone on the Farms.
"MOON MEAN! I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HIT MOON! THOSE DAMN GOY LAWS! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
Literally no. The court has always (since at least 1970's) held that who pays for legal fees doesn't matter, only that fees had to be paid. For one example you can look at Hughes v. Benjamin,Latin Am. Music Co. v. Spanish Broad. Sys. ("The fact that a prevailing party's legal fees are paid by a third party should not deprive it of the ability to recover fees for the total amount spent on successfully litigating a case", ABC, Inc. v. PrimeTime 24, Joint Venture ("In other contexts, courts have consistently held that the fact that a third party has paid some or all of the prevailing party's legal fees does not bar a recovery of statutory attorney's fees." "T]he fact that [a prevailing party’s] legal fees and expenses have been paid by [a third party] may be a factor which the court considers in deciding whether to exercise its discretion in awarding fees, that fact does not bar [the prevailing party] from recovering such fees")
Interestingly, a real lawyer (and you are not one), Nick, agrees with me on this issue.
He does not need to sue you to get fees from you, or to ask the court for any other sanctions. But, given your bad faith behavior towards him, he can always seal his address before delivering the motion. It's rare, but things like that are allowed, and have happened even in this year.
I really doubt that.
My god, retard, learn to fucking read.
He can be registered and not live there. Every year every state removes around 200k thousand of people like that from the voter rolls. It's normal.
Most recently Michigan removed 177k for same reasons.
That's you.
He is not evasive though. The judge confirmed it by stating that there is no evidence he had received the service, nor that the shop the service was left that even notified Null about it, therefore he could not have been evasive.
A month ago you were sure he had tons of cash. What changed?
This is retarded. You are almost as retarded as Pamela Swein
Oh, btw, you said you would report me to the FBI. They haven't shown up yet. Telling, huh?