- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
I think they were attached to some court documents - I remember Rekieta reading them on his show.I may have the Raf emails somewhere. I'll look through and see if she says anything in them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think they were attached to some court documents - I remember Rekieta reading them on his show.I may have the Raf emails somewhere. I'll look through and see if she says anything in them.
Chain of custody will be a concern on those. If she's authenticated them somewhere that would help.I may have the Raf emails somewhere. I'll look through and see if she says anything in them.
Well that's fantastic as I haven't been able to hunt them down yetI think they were attached to some court documents - I remember Rekieta reading them on his show.
@Useful_Mistake Maybe you have the docs where those e-mails were attached as evidence? Ones where Raf offer to pay her one dollarWell that's fantastic as I haven't been able to hunt them down yet
Demon Prince of Patriarchy, Mr. Deadpool
My name is Melinda, not Melissa.
I have 21 days to appeal this Order, which I will.
I have 14 days to file an additional response, which I will.
Don't celebrate too quickly. If this case is dismissed I'll simply re-file and serve Moon in Florida.
Don't be dumb now. You should know better that courts are slow and a long ride. I will exhaust every legal option.
Bye assholes
That was adorable when she called him that! He used to have a great avi that went with it@Useful_Mistake Maybe you have the docs where those e-mails were attached as evidence? Ones where Raf offer to pay her one dollar
Found something really nice early in the thread:
Link: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/melinda-leigh-scott-marshall-castersen.32118/post-5827028
Quote: "Call CPS and all I have to do is show them the screenshot of what you just said. It automatically dismisses the allegations under Virginia law."
Comment: Encourages and welcomes CPS call therefore can't claim the call happening caused her severe emotional distress.
EDIT. Working on a compilation, this is just an example.
EDIT 2. Why nobody's giving me cool pseudonyms like this?
You mean the one where he's drinking from a cup? Seen it in the thread. Dark Prince's shoops are what keeps my sanity while reading Mel's posts.That was adorable when she called him that! He used to have a great avi that went with it
That email was never made public, Mel publically submitted only a very small amount of emails@Useful_Mistake Maybe you have the docs where those e-mails were attached as evidence? Ones where Raf offer to pay her one dollar![]()
This is actually a good one since it directly contradicts this lawsuit's claim of IIED.Link: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/melinda-leigh-scott-marshall-castersen.32118/post-5898578
Link: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/melinda-leigh-scott-marshall-castersen.32118/post-5985259
Quote: "Nothing some idiot pagans say can bring Marshall or me pain. You're opinions are meaningless and worthless. I don't value your opinions at all. You're just a raging demon, like the Stalker. Must be all that porn you both watch, makes you pick up demons"
Quote: "The judgments of the loyal user base on Kiwi Farms are irrelevant to me. But I do find Kiwi Farms useful for debate and discussion about The Torah and moral philosophy."
Comment: Admits Kiwi Farms posts don't cause her distress but she finds the discussion interesting and intellectually stimulating, contrary to claims made in the filing.
Already found one more instance:This is actually a good one since it directly contradicts this lawsuit's claim of IIED.
I'm noting down pretty much everything that's at least in some way related to the lawsuit and motivation behind it, in chronological order. It'll be easier to remove notes later if someone (looking at you, @Useful_Mistake) points out they are irrelevant than to look for more.Also if there are any more posts where she says that her goal was to remove defamatory content that she made after filing this action (June 2020), that would strongly support the accusation that she's attempting to re-litigate her previous failed lawsuits in bad faith rather than bringing a genuine and new claim of IIED.
I wonder if Skordas or the Judge have read it? Sadly I don't think its anything that can be cited in this case.The Canadian judge who wrote the brilliant opinion in Meads v. Meads certainly followed these nutcases assiduously and the opinion is practically a primer on these arguments and why they are wrong.
comment: Demonstrates that she feels her religious convictions mean she can flaunt the laws of the land. No respect for the secular government."No, actually it NEVER says to obey the laws of the land. The Torah doesn't teach that. You're the fool trying to pretend you know anything about The Torah even though you don't! You don't follow The Torah and you don't even study it, you're just a presumptuous fool who thinks she knows what she is talking about!"
comment: She acknowledges that her case is unlikely to prevail, though she blames that on the bias of the judge and the system rather than on the deficiencies of her case. She states that even knowing she is unlikely to prevail, she thinks it's worth continuing to bring suits against Mr. Moon for the moral principle of the thing."So basically, in the USA, if you're a woman, or black, or hispanic, or poor, or not a Free Mason, you might as well just keep fighting for the inherent moral principle that it stands for, because you really have a slim change to win unless you're a white Anglo rich male. Just sayin' it like it is. The USA creates an illusion in elementary schools that we are the land of equal opportunity but that's not really true."
comment: She doesn't accept that any of her previous dismissals mean that she should stop bringing suit. Instead, she demonstrates clearly that she believes all her suits are being dismissed over minor technicalities that, once she corrects, mean that she will win. Rather than contradicting her previous expressed opinion that she is unlikely to win due to bias, this instead explains the mechanism through which she sees the bias manifesting. The biased judge will find some nitpicky rule by which to throw out her lawsuit."SloberrinJ said:
The dismissals read that in every single one of your attempts to sue, you never had a claim. I'm not sure if you even know what that is, but it means that when you file a suit, you must, with each action, cite a case that supports your action. The Judge Parker and his clerks have repeatedly advised you of this in each dismissal, yet you've responded in kind by repeatedly filing another suit without a claim. Fact enough?
That's not a set of FACTs. That's called another hypothesis.
Here, let me show you how to write FACTS.
FACT 1: I have filed 10 pro-se cases in the Federal Western District of VA.
FACT 2: Each of the 10 cases filed were in DIFFERENT subject matter. POP QUIZ: Can you name each of the bodies of case law/law that they each were about?
FACT 3: "Failure to State a Claim" is a broad term that means you don't have all of the ELEMENTS and FACTS alleged to support the SPECIFIC type of law you are filing under.
FACT 4: One of the dismissed cases was dismissed because I didn't reach the $75,000 minimum
FACT 5: One of the dismissed cases was because I filed upon a Criminal statute, and I cannot do that as a civilian
FACT 6: Each of the other dismissals in my cases were in DIFFERENT subject matters for DIFFERENT reasons.
FACT 7: Two of my cases had no prior case law in the fourth district to rely on for a judgment. I broke fresh ground.
POP QUIZ: Name the reasons the other eight were dismissed."
comment: Same as above."Ok, let me show you the FACTS:
Case 1: Cyberstalking (2016) DISMISSED because: Criminal statute, civilian can't file
Case 2: Recovery of Child Support (2016) DISMISSED because: Did not reach $75,000 threshold
Case 3: Constitutional violations by CPS (2017) DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
*First in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table
Case 4: Constitutional violations by VA DMAS (201DISMISSED because: Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Case 4: Fair Housing violations by landlord (201DISMISSED because: Rule 5.2
Case 5: Scott v Moon (Defamation) (201DISMISSED because: "Rhetoric hyperbole"
Case 6: Scott v Moon (Tort) (201DISMISSED because: CDA 230 Immunity
Case 7: Scott v Moon (Injunction) (2017) DISMISSED because: Prosecutor implies Victim's rights
*First in the Fourth district to invoke this law
Case 8: Scott v Carlson (Video Copyright) (201DISMISSED because: No registration of copyright
*This case was the first in the Fourth District to bring this subject to the table
Case 9: ?
Case 10: Pending
Okay, so if you look:
--My cases in 2016, I was really "green" and new on this stuff. I made very basic errors like filing amount statutes and not filing using a criminal statute.
--My cases in 2017 and 2018 had *3* cases where there was no case law to refer to, the judge was setting new precedents. I knocked on their door and asked and got their rulings down for those particular laws.
--The others that fall under "failure to state a claim" were for DIFFERENT reasons in DIFFERENT areas of law. "Failure to state a claim" is a broad term that can mean many things. The reasons mine were dismissed were (a) a Rule 5.2 error (b) Eleventh Amendment Immunity issues and (c) "rhetoric hyperbole". Not because I didn't allege facts that I had my constitutional rights violated or proper facts in general."
comment: See above."I've won several cases at the state level.
Big federal courts are a different ball game. The thing about law is, it's all or nothing. Either you get it 100% or you're out. You can't do it 92%, or 95%, or 99%. I've gained more experience over the last few years, to work out the kinks in my pleadings.
The other issue is that some of the stuff I filed for had no precedent in the Fourth District. I was the first one to bring up the issues and file. So, when you are breaking new ground and asking a court to rule on an issue for the first time, there is a high chance for dismissal.
The third issue is that the Supreme Court of the United States cannot accept 100% of cases. Neither can the Supreme Court of Virginia. Unfortunately, social injustice cannot always be cured. They even say that on the Supreme Court website, that they can't fix of all society's wrongs because they can only handle so many cases."
This case is handled by Mr. HardinI wonder if Skordas or the Judge have read it? Sadly I don't think its anything that can be cited in this case.
comment: She doesn't believe it's important to win her lawsuit. She dismisses the idea that in the legal system, it is important to bring meritorious cases and instead believes that 'fighting your battles' is sufficient justification for using the court's resources and targeting an opposing party using the power of the State.ForscytheBat said:
Cope.
You still lost. All that matters is winning. It doesn't matter if you tried. As a matter of fact, it would be better if you never tried at all, because then you could look back and see two outcomes: a positive or a negative. If you lose, you look back and only see a negative. "At least I tried" is one of the biggest copes there is.
No actually it doesn't matter if you achieve the desired result. How you fight your battles is just as important.
comment: She contradicts claims she made in her court case, admitting that the site isn't important and isn't worth getting mad about.You over estimate the importance of this site. It's a fuck around site. Not worth my energy of getting mad
comment: Another post demonstrating that she thinks it is appropriate to continue to bring the same suit over and over as an iterative process to correct minor defects and ultimately prevail. She demonstrates that she has not received the message from the court that she has no case and should stop using the legal process to harass Mr. Moon.Spergichu said:
You know, if you could just understand basic legal practices and case law, the judges wouldn't have to dismiss parties from your suits.
Do you see it dismissed for not pleading well plead FACTS? NO, ya don't ...DUMMY
The entire pleading was dismissed on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Don't try to pretend you're an expert in Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Anyways, Im doing to Motion to Recuse the Judge for denying me the ability to amend the pleading to join in defendants. BIAS BIAS BIAS
Anonymus Fluhre said:
But I thought she learned from her past mistakes!
Do you see it denied for failure to plead well plead facts or infringement of federal rules? No, ya don't ....DUMMY
comment: Another post demonstrating that she thinks it is appropriate to continue to bring the same suit over and over as an iterative process to correct minor defects and ultimately prevail. She demonstrates that she has not received the message from the court that she has no case and should stop using the legal process to harass Mr. Moon.Don't want to brag or anything, but don't know if any of you legal buffs that actually read the Opinion may have noticed: the Judge didn't dismiss it for "failure to state a claim". He dismissed it under 12(b)(1).
My, my, I've come a long way![]()
I left it to fully archive when I was trying and it left me with "Not Found (yet?)" page.I believe that, in the future, if you take the /wip/ out of the address, it should link to the archived page. I could be wrong.