2020-12-07 - Scott v. Moon Mk VI(?)

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Melinda's the definition of an unreliable narrator, but I believe her when she says she left him. The problem is that she won't stick to it. She's left him over and over again, especially in the last year or so. There's no reason to suspect this time is any more permanent than the last five or six times.

I do believe that she's scared of Marshall. I think he's knocked her around a few times.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius, Useful_Mistake and Kosher Salt
LonesomeDud said:
I know the opinions of internet strangers doesn't mean a whole lot, but you're a good man. I don't mean that as a retard fancult weirdo. I hope this shakes out in your favor.
Click to expand...

Dear leader will be fine. I am sure Melinda Scott, being such a legal master mind, is well aware of the 4th circuits ruling in Kreischer v. Kerrison Dry Goods

Its a very "inside baseball" case, but its the governing precedent for the 4th circuit. The tl'dr though is a Vexatious Litigant can absolutely be hemmed up for Attorneys Fees, provided there is a demonstrable injury that can be categorically shown in monetary terms. In the case of Kreischer, this was through the sale of stock options, which the court remedied by simply ordering the stocks to be sold for the purposes of addressing the dispute (and paying the lawyers).

Its a narrow ruling though, and open to interpretation, but is is supported by Supreme Court precedents. The general assumption is that a litigant acting in a vexatious and oppressive manner is on the hook for the expense of the litigation. It is a very high bar to achieve, but Melinda Scott has worked tirelessly for years now to jump that hurdle. She will have to now apply everything she learned in that one semester as Appalachia Law School to fight off a demand for relief that will not only enjoin her from ever suing Josh again without expressed leave of the court, but also for not having to pay Josh thousands of dollars over the rest of her natural life.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene, Botchy Galoop, Troonologist PhD and 9 others
mindlessobserver said:
Its a narrow ruling though, and open to interpretation, but is is supported by Supreme Court precedents. The general assumption is that a litigant acting in a vexatious and oppressive manner is on the hook for the expense of the litigation. It is a very high bar to achieve, but Melinda Scott has worked tirelessly for years now to jump that hurdle. She will have to now apply everything she learned in that one semester as Appalachia Law School to fight off a demand for relief that will not only enjoin her from ever suing Josh again without expressed leave of the court, but also for not having to pay Josh thousands of dollars over the rest of her natural life.
Click to expand...
She lives on the dole. You can't garnish money from someone like her. That's what makes her (and other people who sue the farms regularly) so dangerous. They usually have nothing the court can take except their free time, so while the risk for business owners from these people is high, the risk to them is low.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene, ScenarioOfTLoU2, Troonologist PhD and 9 others
mindlessobserver said:
Dear leader will be fine. I am sure Melinda Scott, being such a legal master mind, is well aware of the 4th circuits ruling in Kreischer v. Kerrison Dry Goods

Its a very "inside baseball" case, but its the governing precedent for the 4th circuit. The tl'dr though is a Vexatious Litigant can absolutely be hemmed up for Attorneys Fees, provided there is a demonstrable injury that can be categorically shown in monetary terms. In the case of Kreischer, this was through the sale of stock options, which the court remedied by simply ordering the stocks to be sold for the purposes of addressing the dispute (and paying the lawyers).

Its a narrow ruling though, and open to interpretation, but is is supported by Supreme Court precedents. The general assumption is that a litigant acting in a vexatious and oppressive manner is on the hook for the expense of the litigation. It is a very high bar to achieve, but Melinda Scott has worked tirelessly for years now to jump that hurdle. She will have to now apply everything she learned in that one semester as Appalachia Law School to fight off a demand for relief that will not only enjoin her from ever suing Josh again without expressed leave of the court, but also for not having to pay Josh thousands of dollars over the rest of her natural life.
Click to expand...
I'm may not sue for fees. She's currently being evicted, as I've heard. I wouldn't even get the money it cost to write the counter.
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Splendid, koos koets, Pee Cola and 22 others
Null said:
I'm may not sue for fees. She's currently being evicted, as I've heard. I wouldn't even get the money it cost to write the counter.
Click to expand...
Would going for it anyway put a barrier up for her to start another lawsuit?

I'm no lawyer but
mindlessobserver said:
She will have to now apply everything she learned in that one semester as Appalachia Law School to fight off a demand for relief that will not only enjoin her from ever suing Josh again without expressed leave of the court,
Click to expand...
if that's true, putting that financial wall in front of her could be enough to prevent any future headaches.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene and Letora
Shaka Brah said:
She lives on the dole. You can't garnish money from someone like her. That's what makes her (and other people who sue the farms regularly) so dangerous. They usually have nothing the court can take except their free time, so while the risk for business owners from these people is high, the risk to them is low.
Click to expand...
Even unemployed utter losers aren't beyond repercussions. If you keep fucking with people, you'll eventually run into someone you shouldn't have fucked with.
If nothing else, we can look forward to Melinda learning that lesson the hard way, as she certainly won't learn otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Robert Sanvagene, Troonologist PhD, Allakazam223 and 4 others
Null said:
I'm may not sue for fees. She's currently being evicted, as I've heard. I wouldn't even get the money it cost to write the counter.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't fuckin doin it again tho lol

(Tho they probably would, batshit crazy is consistent)
 
Useful_Mistake said:
Mel filled a motion to strike. It is horrible. You can find it here
Click to expand...
Literal gibberish. And completely wrong. What she needs to do is actually obey the court's order to respond. Instead this brainless twat completely ignores the court's order and does some other crazy bullshit instead. I'd say this is the most retarded thing this whore ever did, but then I remember she decided to get repeatedly pumped full of jizz by this rejected extra from The Hills Have Eyes.

marshall.gif
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Make Anime Illegal, din365, Pee Cola and 13 others
How frequently is she homeless? I’m not familiar with her saga but from the sounds of it, it’s not the first time she’s out on the streets.
 
If you throw shit against a wall, some of it is bound to stick eventually.
Null said:
I'm may not sue for fees. She's currently being evicted, as I've heard. I wouldn't even get the money it cost to write the counter.
Click to expand...
You probably should, just to put the fear of YHWH in her.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: GigaKike
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back