🐮 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
RodgerDodger dijo:
So what are the bets?
A. Shrieking Crazy Response as usual
B. Ignore it as she does all other collection actions. Its not like she has anything to attach.
C. File a new Appeal attempting yet another end run around the court
Presiona para expandir...
DING DING! Answer "A" was correct!
Screenshot 2023-03-22 230426.png

image-000001.png
image-000002.png
image-000003.png
image-000004.png
image-000005.png
image-000006.png
image-000007.png
image-000008.png
image-000009.png
image-000010.png
image-000011.png

image-000001.png
 

Archivos adjuntos

 
Lamb dishes are popular in his area. If he can learn to make a good leg of lamb he can find a good wife, or just learn to make some Cevapcici.
 
Última edición:
Useful_Mistake dijo:
DING DING! Answer "A" was correct!
Ver archivo adjunto 4852540

Ver archivo adjunto 4852557
Ver archivo adjunto 4852561
Ver archivo adjunto 4852564
Ver archivo adjunto 4852565
Ver archivo adjunto 4852572
Ver archivo adjunto 4852577
Ver archivo adjunto 4852580
Ver archivo adjunto 4852588
Ver archivo adjunto 4852592
Ver archivo adjunto 4852593
Ver archivo adjunto 4852596

Ver archivo adjunto 4852608
Presiona para expandir...
Would you tell us why this is super-retarded? I know why it's retarded (she misunderstand in forma pauperis, repeats Fat Ashley's unsubstantiated lies and lies about Null's motivation for filing for attorney's fees) but I'm sure there is more.

Also, how I missed making those:
1679520999385.png
 
Screenshot 2023-03-22 232214.png
1. He has good cause
2. He didn't have to.
3. Court essentially told him to refile it when the appeals are done:
Screenshot 2023-03-22 232447.png
4. The appellate court denied the appellate motion for attorney's fees
Screenshot 2023-03-22 232914.png
Screenshot 2023-03-22 233018.png
As you can see, the dates are different, and the appellate court references the motion filed in their own court, not the district one,
5. Mr. Hardin's argument did not rely on the Magistrate.
6-7. Non applicable, and put here to provoke an emotional response.

The rest of her doc asserts that:
1. Null has no factual basis to assert that he filed it in bad faith, and Hardin debunked it with her own words.
Screenshot 2023-03-22 233413.png
Screenshot 2023-03-22 233433.png
2. The appeal point I addressed in point 4, which is simply inaccurate on her behalf.
3. That he has no good cause (he does)
4. Screenshot 2023-03-22 233620.png

Problems:
Her citation is unpublished, therefore having low precedential value. As her case points out, "Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.", she can pay (as her FB can easily attest), and finally, the case literally does not mention anything similar to what she says., and finally, Dennis E. Yarrell v. Kenny Simmons Clay Buck, 45 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1994) (case with actual precedential value) specifically affirms an attorney fees judgment against IFP litigant. (Edit: she cited more stuff, and see my debunking on it below)
5. Finally, and humorously, she asserts it would be unjust for the court to award money to Null. I disagree

Edit: Addendum to fourth point. One of Mel's cases cites Cherry v. Champion International Corp., 186 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 1999) who in turn cites Congregation of the Passion v. Touche, Ross, 854 F.2d 219 (7th Cir. 1988 ). Both of these cases do not help Mel. They say that the court "must award costs" unless either the winning party engaged in bad faith behavior, or the losing party is unable to pay. The second case does not mention IFP, or Mel's conclusion that this would automatically make her unable to pay, while the former says the opposite of what Mel says, specifically saying that this exception does not exist ("We also observe that any ruling exempting an unsuccessful plaintiff with Cherry's financial resources from satisfying court costs would create a perplexing exception to Rule 54(d), one unavailable to in forma pauperis plaintiffs proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. While a non-prisoner in forma pauperis plaintiff remains exempt from paying filing fees or providing security for costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the in forma pauperis plaintiff nonetheless remains liable for paying the prevailing adversary's costs, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1) (stating that when a party proceeds in forma pauperis, "judgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings"). In Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1981), for instance, we held that "a district court is empowered to award costs even when it has previously granted a litigant the benefits" of in forma pauperis status. Id. at 972."). Ironically, these cases that Mel so heavily relies on prove her wrong.
 
Última edición:
Useful_Mistake dijo:
I forgot about them, and seems like so did she
Presiona para expandir...
Probably shared the same fate as Marshall and willingly stuck their heads in a bear trap.

Hey guys, do you remember saying you would cause bodily harm to Melinda if the collections man visits her? I distinctly remember just Melinda screeching she would shoot anyone who comes on her property’s legal or not. Sounds like she’s the more violent one here wanting to cause bodily harm. She already hurts her children. Have you seen the slop she makes them eat?
 
Anne Hyroe dijo:
Others are much better at dissecting the legal things so I will give Melinda a rare compliment: this shows both growth and kindness.
Presiona para expandir...
This is, I think the third or fourth time she has done something like this. Lets put it in another way, she has doxed her feet more times than she has shown acts of kindness and compassion
 
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo