- Joined
- May 4, 2020
2020-12-07 - Scott v. Moon Mk VI(?)
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
The Judge Granted Null's requested extension, apparently same day. If not within moments of it being filed. Yeah, he's sick of Melinda's shit.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Motion to require an appeal bond.
Doc attached for anyone curious
TheShedCollector
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2020
@TamarYaelBatYah is fat and ugly. She is an unfit mother, drug addict, whore and the dumbest person to ever have lived.
She is beneath contempt. When her neighbours see her in the street they should spit on her. She should be absolutely ostracised from society, cut off from the population and made to live in a cave where her ugly children will starve to death and ensure her genetic legacy does not continue.
She is beneath contempt. When her neighbours see her in the street they should spit on her. She should be absolutely ostracised from society, cut off from the population and made to live in a cave where her ugly children will starve to death and ensure her genetic legacy does not continue.
If this pass, I'm wishing it does but expecting it doesn't, the appeal will be dead on arrival.
This is tbh the best move for the appeal side. Put up or shut up.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
@TamarYaelBatYah you're really not very smart, are you?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
I think this is a good tactical move by Hardin. His motion was very short and direct. Smelly's response will be her usual word salad of mangled case law and fantasies.
As an added bonus, she will be locked in to whatever statements she makes in response to the motion to require a bond when Hardin's motion for costs rolls in accompanied by choice excerpts from her posts here. It is likely there will be a single order disposing of both motions. This means the Mag. Judge will have a full record of Smelly's interactions here and Smelly's weird lies about them when she decides whether the appeal is in bad faith.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
If the judge grants the motion, it more or less kill's Smelly's appeal. She'll probably still file some frivolous bullshit while refusing to put up the bond, and it will be drop-kicked into orbit.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Is she appealing just the Kiwi part of the case or is Wise County back in too? Also, thanks in advance lawfags, how long until we get to read her grounds for appeal? I hope she accuses the judge of being a freemason again.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
The first thing that we'll probably see will be her response to the bond motion. She has 10 days to respond.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2019
Is it normal to order the plaintiff to respond or does that imply "we're inclined to grant this unless you have a good reason we shouldn't"?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
I'd assume it's a convenience as she's allowed to file a response and the court wants to inform the parties what their filing deadlines are. In general it's just better to put the parties on notice than to have someone miss a deadline because they didn't know about it and then have to deal with a motion to show good cause for why it wasn't timely that isn't "I didn't know/forgot" - that isn't a valid excuse, even if it's the truth. At least this way the court knows that they know.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
She literally cannot appeal the Wise County bit. She's late to appeal that by about 9 months, IIRC.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It's pretty routine. Sometimes it's called an Order to Show Cause, which actually does pretty clearly indicate the court is probably going to grant the motion, but in this case, it's just a courtesy to let the party know they have an opportunity to respond and a deadline.
The court doesn't actually have to do this. If there's a rule setting a deadline, and you blow it, that's on you. It just makes it really clear, though, that you didn't blow it out of "excusable neglect" or some other reason you could use to extend a deadline and file late. If you get notification like this and ignore it, you clearly had every opportunity to file on time.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
New docs here. Analysis later to come.
And said rights are open to conditions. To be specific, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 6, Rule 7 (that Hardin cited), etc. all of which conditionalize your right to appeal. Rule 24 can be used to deny a litigant IFP rights, if the court determines it is frivolous. Many different jurisdictions have upheld this rule and used it even as early as this year. See, for example, Reynolds v. Boyle, 679 F. App'x 372 (5th Cir.2017), Dominique A. Morrow v. Stoner, et al, (N.D. Ohio 2014), Rogers v. Cochran et al, (N.D. Tex. 2021). This rule has been used even in courts in the 4th circuit. See, for example, Carl H. Alley, Petitioner, v. Dodge Hotel, Respondent, 501 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Despite what Melinda thinks, it is not absurd that she has to follow the rules of Appellate Procedure. She is as bound to them as is anyone else.
This is only an alternative to his initial demand, that is to say, an appellate bond, which is perfectly within 6he rules (see rule 24 and rule 7).
In any case, courts can always issue an Order to show cause for a party to explain why their motion should be granted. Given that the court must establish whatever or not Melinda is doing this in bad faith, such order is only natural. There is no question that a judge may use the powers granted to him, including when assessing your rights to appeal, or whatever or not your motion is in bad faith. This is something very basic and simple to understand, and exists in both civil and criminal courts. There are many citations to this, some that have come from the fourth circuit up to SCOTUS. See, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27, etc.
Null seeks to make sure you follow the rules, rules which allow your appeal to have bonds, have IFP status retracted, or otherwise punish what a court sees as a frivolous appeal, if court so choses. Even Jews are subject to rules, Melinda, however much you would dislike them.
1. Subjectively believing your action to be filed in Good Faith, does not necessarily mean it was filled in Good Faith, and can still be found to be frivolous. See, for example, Griffith v. Smith, 30 Va. Cir. 250 (1993),
2. Similarly, you supposed lack of statement admitting to bad faith behavior does not mean there is none. Whatever there is or not, is for the court to decide. See above citations, and rules of appellate procedure.
Incorrect. As the court itself pointed out this lawsuit was clearly meritless, and full of "repetitive meritless filings". Considering, as the court pointed out, that it's clear to see that you have no cause of action, considering your history of meritless actions, considering your own admissions on here about your lawsuit's frivolousness, considering you don't even have a clear jurisdiction on Null, it is not absurd to think that this is to hurt Null, as you stated many times to be your goal.
It is very well accepted that meritless filings, no matter how small, are a burden on everyone. See Roller v. Gunn, et al, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 1997), In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177
The thing is the court found no notice. See below:
As towards the extensions of time argument, such motions are not an abuse of court if requested for a good reason. All three times Hardin asked for it, court found his arguments for it to be valid.
Plaintiff is invited to read the motion in question, wherein she can find multiple reasons for his request, including, but not limited to this important one:
Plaintiff is advised that is is often a good idea to read the motions one is responding when filing a response.
Following the rules in not absurd.
There is different between a malicious motion, and an allegedly malicious website. Only one of them would be relevant here, and it is not the one you picked.
The accusations are quite founded, and Hardin's claim of your frivolousness was found to be valid by the court.
So you say, and yet it was found that his claims did have merit.
Despite her outrage about Hardin's lack of citations, this is the first out of three citations in this document. Pot meet kettle.
That being said, reading it this way has its limitations, and is not a immunity shield against any frivolousness of your own doing. Labram v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918 (4th Cir. 1995), Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 u.s. 662 (2009 )
What follows is long rant that can be best summarized as "if he did everything I wanted him to, I wouldn't have sued him, therefore I am the victim"
Section "V." J-M are rehashes of the arguments she has already made and ones I had already addressed above.
Let the old me address this:
It should be accurate enough.
But you have not. Even the court agrees it is just baseless "speculati[on]" and "do[es] not meet the test of Virginia law"
All your failures are relevant, since it shows no court has found any of it to be of any value.
A denied appeal is in favour of Null. How is that so hard to grasp?
Also, Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees Int'l Union, 15-1931 (4th Cir. 2017), CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Devon Johnson, 19-1516 (4th Cir. 2020)
Ignoring the first bit, Null can pay his attorney however he wants. Be it from his bank account, from GofundMe, or whatever, as long as it is paid. Naturally, any evidence of his payments will reveal itself with the motion, as proof to the amount requested. At this stage, this is simply irrelevant
For someone complaining about lack of citations, she sure hates providing them. Vacations happen, deal with it. That being said, learn to read better. Difficulty to reach him was not only due to his vacation.
Moon, indeed, is not entitled to special treatment. Your inability to understand rules, and procedures, does not grant him "special treatment". You yourself have asked the court for an extension of time.
Neither have you that anything you said is true.
Only when you were late to file. Hardin filed early. Please read your citations more carefully:
Again, this applies if you were late, not early. From your own citation:
What follows is Mel displaying that she fell for Ralf's tricks when he said he can "totally make the judge do what he wants". That's why she lost. Because some rando said something she can't prove, but because it aligns up with her worldview it must be correct. It is delusional and should be tossed Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)
You did not. You accused him of every buzzword in the book to hope something stuck. Frivolous motions such as this naturally get denied
Like the judge said, you did not need his permission to do discovery.
Crimes and criminals are often tolerable. Look at Floyd, Al Capone, etc, all who enjoy great admiration from the public. That being said, what some people consider "intolerable" is not "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."" What falls into this category is things like torture of your children in front of you. In fact, it must be so "extreme" and "severe" that "that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." Russo v. White, 400 SE2d 160 (Va. 1991). Kiwifarms, or indeed, CPS calls do not fall under that measure.
Melinda is confused as to why, when shown her service was fraudulent under law, the judge changed his mind.
Even if that is the case, such restrictions have been valid since at least 1962. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Even harsher restrictions have been found valid like pre-filing injunctions since at least, in VA, 1977. See Ronald Graham v. W. M. Riddle, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, Director, Virginia State Penitentiary, Ronald Graham v. Rebecca Ponder, Administrator, Central State Hospital, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis and A. G. Robinson, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, W. M. Riddle, and Sergeant D. T. Scites, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, Director, 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977)
Again, this is not a magical shield, and as Supreme Court showed in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, it should not be seen as that. Complaints get tossed for faults whatever or not you think you have a magical shield protecting you.
Citation needed
But you were speculating. The was not a single fact, nor proof provided.
1. The complaint is structured in a way that makes it seem it only applies to CPS
2. Moon is not the government, or any arm of it thereof, and therefore cannot be held liable for alleged constitutional violations Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17-1702, 587 U.S. (2019)
Rule 24, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, Jonathan Henslee v. Alvin Keller, 11-6707 (4th Cir. 2012), also from your appeal sheet:
Now we move to her memorandum which is for some reason shorter than this
1. Your citation is for a criminal case, this is a civil one
2. Even if it didn't only apply to us gov (it specifically mentions only them), this is fundamentally different from your case. In here you seek to appeal while having IFP while Null seeks to place a bail on you. In the case cited, no bail is present, only a denial of IFP.
3. You are trying to apply criminal law to a civil case. It doesn't apply. This is not your trial, Null is not the Government, the context behind the ruling is different, and you are in a completely different type of court. I hope I expressed well enough how much this does not fit
"Often made" and "must be made" is not the same thing
1. Congrats. Your case does lack it.
2. "May"
3. Because your case has gotten this far does not mean it has merit. Indeed, many frivolous complaints, sadly, make it pretty far before being found frivolous. Circular Logic is not a valid legal argument
4. There is basis in the literal rules of appellate procedure, but I guess they don't matter
The court has cited many of your frivolous actions, and indeed has warned you not to pursue them further. That being said, regardless of motive, your complaint can still be frivolous (see citations above)
She then continues to wave her magic shield, and continues to misread very simple words of the Supreme Court.
Melinda, your lack of ability to read is your own damned fault
Ammendum in regards to her "I have a constitutional right to appeal". That's a common misconception. There is no constitutional right to an appeal. However states that have made appeallate courts "an integral part of the . . . system for finally adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant," are bound by the 14th amendment's "Due process" clause. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387. That clause, of course, is for Criminal Courts.
TLDR: She ignored Hardin's citations and said he had none, complained about being oppressed, and showed that she is incapable of basic reading
And said rights are open to conditions. To be specific, Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 6, Rule 7 (that Hardin cited), etc. all of which conditionalize your right to appeal. Rule 24 can be used to deny a litigant IFP rights, if the court determines it is frivolous. Many different jurisdictions have upheld this rule and used it even as early as this year. See, for example, Reynolds v. Boyle, 679 F. App'x 372 (5th Cir.2017), Dominique A. Morrow v. Stoner, et al, (N.D. Ohio 2014), Rogers v. Cochran et al, (N.D. Tex. 2021). This rule has been used even in courts in the 4th circuit. See, for example, Carl H. Alley, Petitioner, v. Dodge Hotel, Respondent, 501 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Despite what Melinda thinks, it is not absurd that she has to follow the rules of Appellate Procedure. She is as bound to them as is anyone else.
This is only an alternative to his initial demand, that is to say, an appellate bond, which is perfectly within 6he rules (see rule 24 and rule 7).
In any case, courts can always issue an Order to show cause for a party to explain why their motion should be granted. Given that the court must establish whatever or not Melinda is doing this in bad faith, such order is only natural. There is no question that a judge may use the powers granted to him, including when assessing your rights to appeal, or whatever or not your motion is in bad faith. This is something very basic and simple to understand, and exists in both civil and criminal courts. There are many citations to this, some that have come from the fourth circuit up to SCOTUS. See, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27, etc.
Null seeks to make sure you follow the rules, rules which allow your appeal to have bonds, have IFP status retracted, or otherwise punish what a court sees as a frivolous appeal, if court so choses. Even Jews are subject to rules, Melinda, however much you would dislike them.
1. Subjectively believing your action to be filed in Good Faith, does not necessarily mean it was filled in Good Faith, and can still be found to be frivolous. See, for example, Griffith v. Smith, 30 Va. Cir. 250 (1993),
2. Similarly, you supposed lack of statement admitting to bad faith behavior does not mean there is none. Whatever there is or not, is for the court to decide. See above citations, and rules of appellate procedure.
Incorrect. As the court itself pointed out this lawsuit was clearly meritless, and full of "repetitive meritless filings". Considering, as the court pointed out, that it's clear to see that you have no cause of action, considering your history of meritless actions, considering your own admissions on here about your lawsuit's frivolousness, considering you don't even have a clear jurisdiction on Null, it is not absurd to think that this is to hurt Null, as you stated many times to be your goal.
It is very well accepted that meritless filings, no matter how small, are a burden on everyone. See Roller v. Gunn, et al, 107 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 1997), In Re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177
The thing is the court found no notice. See below:
As towards the extensions of time argument, such motions are not an abuse of court if requested for a good reason. All three times Hardin asked for it, court found his arguments for it to be valid.
Plaintiff is invited to read the motion in question, wherein she can find multiple reasons for his request, including, but not limited to this important one:
Plaintiff is advised that is is often a good idea to read the motions one is responding when filing a response.
Following the rules in not absurd.
There is different between a malicious motion, and an allegedly malicious website. Only one of them would be relevant here, and it is not the one you picked.
The accusations are quite founded, and Hardin's claim of your frivolousness was found to be valid by the court.
So you say, and yet it was found that his claims did have merit.
Despite her outrage about Hardin's lack of citations, this is the first out of three citations in this document. Pot meet kettle.
That being said, reading it this way has its limitations, and is not a immunity shield against any frivolousness of your own doing. Labram v. Havel, 43 F.3d 918 (4th Cir. 1995), Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957), Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 u.s. 662 (2009 )
What follows is long rant that can be best summarized as "if he did everything I wanted him to, I wouldn't have sued him, therefore I am the victim"
Section "V." J-M are rehashes of the arguments she has already made and ones I had already addressed above.
Let the old me address this:
It should be accurate enough.
But you have not. Even the court agrees it is just baseless "speculati[on]" and "do[es] not meet the test of Virginia law"
All your failures are relevant, since it shows no court has found any of it to be of any value.
A denied appeal is in favour of Null. How is that so hard to grasp?
Also, Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees Int'l Union, 15-1931 (4th Cir. 2017), CX Reinsurance Company Limited v. Devon Johnson, 19-1516 (4th Cir. 2020)
Ignoring the first bit, Null can pay his attorney however he wants. Be it from his bank account, from GofundMe, or whatever, as long as it is paid. Naturally, any evidence of his payments will reveal itself with the motion, as proof to the amount requested. At this stage, this is simply irrelevant
For someone complaining about lack of citations, she sure hates providing them. Vacations happen, deal with it. That being said, learn to read better. Difficulty to reach him was not only due to his vacation.
Moon, indeed, is not entitled to special treatment. Your inability to understand rules, and procedures, does not grant him "special treatment". You yourself have asked the court for an extension of time.
Neither have you that anything you said is true.
Only when you were late to file. Hardin filed early. Please read your citations more carefully:
Again, this applies if you were late, not early. From your own citation:
What follows is Mel displaying that she fell for Ralf's tricks when he said he can "totally make the judge do what he wants". That's why she lost. Because some rando said something she can't prove, but because it aligns up with her worldview it must be correct. It is delusional and should be tossed Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)
You did not. You accused him of every buzzword in the book to hope something stuck. Frivolous motions such as this naturally get denied
Like the judge said, you did not need his permission to do discovery.
Crimes and criminals are often tolerable. Look at Floyd, Al Capone, etc, all who enjoy great admiration from the public. That being said, what some people consider "intolerable" is not "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."" What falls into this category is things like torture of your children in front of you. In fact, it must be so "extreme" and "severe" that "that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it." Russo v. White, 400 SE2d 160 (Va. 1991). Kiwifarms, or indeed, CPS calls do not fall under that measure.
Melinda is confused as to why, when shown her service was fraudulent under law, the judge changed his mind.
Even if that is the case, such restrictions have been valid since at least 1962. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). Even harsher restrictions have been found valid like pre-filing injunctions since at least, in VA, 1977. See Ronald Graham v. W. M. Riddle, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, Director, Virginia State Penitentiary, Ronald Graham v. Rebecca Ponder, Administrator, Central State Hospital, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis and A. G. Robinson, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, W. M. Riddle, and Sergeant D. T. Scites, Ronald Graham v. Jack Davis, Director, 554 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1977)
Again, this is not a magical shield, and as Supreme Court showed in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, it should not be seen as that. Complaints get tossed for faults whatever or not you think you have a magical shield protecting you.
Citation needed
But you were speculating. The was not a single fact, nor proof provided.
1. The complaint is structured in a way that makes it seem it only applies to CPS
2. Moon is not the government, or any arm of it thereof, and therefore cannot be held liable for alleged constitutional violations Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 17-1702, 587 U.S. (2019)
Rule 24, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, Jonathan Henslee v. Alvin Keller, 11-6707 (4th Cir. 2012), also from your appeal sheet:
Now we move to her memorandum which is for some reason shorter than this
1. Your citation is for a criminal case, this is a civil one
2. Even if it didn't only apply to us gov (it specifically mentions only them), this is fundamentally different from your case. In here you seek to appeal while having IFP while Null seeks to place a bail on you. In the case cited, no bail is present, only a denial of IFP.
3. You are trying to apply criminal law to a civil case. It doesn't apply. This is not your trial, Null is not the Government, the context behind the ruling is different, and you are in a completely different type of court. I hope I expressed well enough how much this does not fit
"Often made" and "must be made" is not the same thing
1. Congrats. Your case does lack it.
2. "May"
3. Because your case has gotten this far does not mean it has merit. Indeed, many frivolous complaints, sadly, make it pretty far before being found frivolous. Circular Logic is not a valid legal argument
4. There is basis in the literal rules of appellate procedure, but I guess they don't matter
The court has cited many of your frivolous actions, and indeed has warned you not to pursue them further. That being said, regardless of motive, your complaint can still be frivolous (see citations above)
She then continues to wave her magic shield, and continues to misread very simple words of the Supreme Court.
Melinda, your lack of ability to read is your own damned fault
Ammendum in regards to her "I have a constitutional right to appeal". That's a common misconception. There is no constitutional right to an appeal. However states that have made appeallate courts "an integral part of the . . . system for finally adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a defendant," are bound by the 14th amendment's "Due process" clause. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387. That clause, of course, is for Criminal Courts.
TLDR: She ignored Hardin's citations and said he had none, complained about being oppressed, and showed that she is incapable of basic reading
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
I'd like to add that there is no indication I have seen anywhere in her thread or elsewhere that a Kiwi was at all responsible for calling Wise County CPS. As far as I know we only found out that she'd been visited by them because she volunteered the information. The likely answer is that one of her neighbors or the local county government got them involved independently for some other issue they witnessed.
While that's not relevant to her argument being good or bad (you can make a good argument about a false claim), I think it's pretty important since the worst thing she can claim ever happened to her with any real evidence is that people called her retarded on the internet. This is legal.
While that's not relevant to her argument being good or bad (you can make a good argument about a false claim), I think it's pretty important since the worst thing she can claim ever happened to her with any real evidence is that people called her retarded on the internet. This is legal.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
This is already pointed out in a document that's being worked on at Null's request:
@Useful_Mistake You're doing Nick's job for him
Still can't wait for him to talk about those new docs.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Yeah, same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't cover much of anything recent from Russ and Mel, bar the "Mel is appealing? Not in that way ew" videoThis is already pointed out in a document that's being worked on at Null's request:
@Useful_Mistake You're doing Nick's job for him
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
Nah, he's mostly chilling with his cigar and talking about random subjects
Something that makes me wonder regarding the case: is it normal to respond to a motion that's already granted? I mean the time extension.
- Status