🐮 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.

  • Iniciador del tema Iniciador del tema Null
  • Fecha de inicio Fecha de inicio
Destacado
"I'm Not Owned, I'm Not Owned!!" I continue to insist, as I get banned and my posts disappear
 
You kidding me, knowing Melinda this is probably the most turned on she's been in years. We know she gets off on humiliation. She's probably still out of breath.
 
Maldron the Assassin dijo:
Can't help but notice there haven't been any smart ass replies from Mel after Null's lawyer took her to school. Maybe she's stuck at home, working through the new fillings with a dictionary?
Presiona para expandir...
She's probably having to do her utmost to pretend like she's not an insane woman, if her story about living with an "Israelite family" is to be believed. That includes not obsessively posting on her thread 8 days a week. She'll be back, though-- Melinda is nothing if not predictable. At the very least when the judge dismisses her case she'll have to come on and lay Kabbalah curses on all of us.
 
fnaarf dijo:
She's probably having to do her utmost to pretend like she's not an insane woman, if her story about living with an "Israelite family" is to be believed. That includes not obsessively posting on her thread 8 days a week. She'll be back, though-- Melinda is nothing if not predictable. At the very least when the judge dismisses her case she'll have to come on and lay Kabbalah curses on all of us.
Presiona para expandir...
Yup. The autistic REE'ing on that day will be heard from the ISS.

I do have to wonder if part of the reason she's just lurking the thread is that she now realizes (Especially after Hardin and Rackets pointed out several of the errors she herself made in her filing) that her big "Win" is about to be dismissed, and there stands a high likelihood that she will be labeled as a vexatious litigant. She sperged so hard when she got the default, and now it's about to turn in to loss #6, along with hopefully taking away her ability to file anymore suits without a lawyer, any of whom will likely laugh her out of their office as they tell her they're not stupid enough to take her case. That has to be weighing heavily on her, especially since her narc brain won't let her take the blame for the failure that is her.
 
I'm curious what Mel's much ballyhooed three month future visions said, if anything, about the events of yesterday and about her court case?

Also, I wonder if the reason she's not posting is as simple as not having data on her plan any more and not being allowed on the wifi at her new place, if there even is a new place.
 
Mel puts me in the weird position of being concerned she’s neglecting her children when she posts 24/7, but also being concerned she’s neglecting her kids when we hear nothing from her.

I hope the kids are safe and that her new home isn’t just moving in with another abuser she barely knows.
 
ConSluttant dijo:
For which thing? And is it Melinda's response that was needed?
Presiona para expandir...
It was the deadline for Null to reply to Melinda's response to the motion to dismiss and motion to set aside the default, I believe. It was already filed on Tuesday and was posted a couple pages back. I think today is hypothetically the first day the court might make a ruling, but there's no guarantees.
 
@TamarYaelBatYah replied to Null's opposition to her second motion to compel

Images:

image-000001.png
image-000002.png
image-000003.png
image-000004.png

Counter points:

1. You need to do more than assert that he has such information when he asserts that he does not
2. This does not address the point 4 of Null's motion to oppose which kills your request in its entirety.
3. Like stated many times by me, and Null's lawyer, Rules 33, 34, 26 kills this
4. Point 6 still kills this motion in its entirety
5. The court did not permit discovery. Indeed the court only stated that you did not need its permission
"The plaintiff does not need the permission of the court to engage in “immediate discovery.” "
Presiona para expandir...
 

Archivos adjuntos

Última edición:
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo