🐮 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
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...
I like to make fun of Mel as much as everybody here but I don't think that she's being an insufferable cunt on purpose. She comes from a broken and dysfunctional family so she's poorly socialized. Her father was the only family member she had a positive relationship with and he killed himself so she has severe trust issues. Everybody tells her that she's a failure and she fucked up her life (not without reasons) so she's trying to prove herself with her degree in Playing Outdoors, trying to be a writer or her lolsuits. Andrew was supposed to be her friend and support system but he was a creep so she fears forming relationships with people but at the same time she craves companionship (look at her interactions with Kiwis).
I pity her a little and I know a lot of what she does is just defense mechanism but I would pity her much more if she wasn't such an insufferable argumentative bitch.
 
Your Girlfriend's Dad dijo:
I'm sure it's been asked, but how the fuck has this person not been declared a vexatious litigant by now. Same goes for Greer. Maybe @Useful_Mistake can elaborate on this for me.
Presiona para expandir...
long story short, in America, the courts are usually very reluctant to restrict a normal citizens access to the court system, as it is a Constitutional right, and those are hard to restrict if you’re not a felon. It can happen, but Smelly hasn’t quite hit that point yet, although she’s down the road a good ways.

Legal Kiwis, please feel free to correct as needed.
 
I just want the court to order her crap to be sold so that I can go get me those lambs. I'll record a shearing party before summer so the lovelies can survive the humidity better.
 
Your Girlfriend's Dad dijo:
I'm sure it's been asked, but how the fuck has this person not been declared a vexatious litigant by now.
Presiona para expandir...
Courts are simply too forgiving - when they see someone as broken as Mel, Pam or Russhole they just politely tell them that it's not how the legal system works.
 
Pat Fried Rice dijo:
long story short, in America, the courts are usually very reluctant to restrict a normal citizens access to the court system, as it is a Constitutional right, and those are hard to restrict if you’re not a felon. It can happen, but Smelly hasn’t quite hit that point yet, although she’s down the road a good ways.

Legal Kiwis, please feel free to correct as needed.
Presiona para expandir...
Yeah, I get that. The means by which somebody's constitutional right should be limited is a slippery slope, but isn't this repetetive and baseless? What's the mechanism by which vexatious litigancy can be declared? I have to imagine it's rather uniform regardless of jurisdiction, as it's a constitutional issue.
 
Illuminati Order Official dijo:
Courts are simply too forgiving - when they see someone as broken as Mel, Pam or Russhole they just politely tell them that it's not how the legal system works.
Presiona para expandir...
What the court SHOULD DO at this point is say, no more free rides. You've done enough damage, your motions are shit, you're so fucking stupid that at this point if you want to file a lawsuit, you need a lawyer to look it over first.

Sadly, they probably won't.
 
Your Girlfriend's Dad dijo:
Yeah, I get that. The means by which somebody's constitutional right should be limited is a slippery slope, but isn't this repetetive and baseless? What's the mechanism by which vexatious litigancy can be declared? I have to imagine it's rather uniform regardless of jurisdiction, as it's a constitutional issue.
Presiona para expandir...
#IANAL. Apologies for any inaccuracies. Working off memory.

It is baseless and repetitive. Mel is the textbook definition of a vexatious litigant, she just unfortunately hasn't been legally declared on yet, to my knowledge. You definitely have the right of it though, any restriction of constitutional rights rising from anything non-criminal is a slope that needs to be treaded with absolute caution.

I'm unsure as to the exact process, but the unfortunate issue is (iirc) that the vexatious declaration is only applicable in the jurisdiction it's issued in. Hence why Mel has openly said she'll simply refile her suit in Florida if she's declared in VA. The process starts all over again, although a legal kiwi will need to tell if the Court can choose to acknowledge the previous declaration and make it applicable there.
 
Your Girlfriend's Dad dijo:
I'm sure it's been asked, but how the fuck has this person not been declared a vexatious litigant by now. Same goes for Greer. Maybe @Useful_Mistake can elaborate on this for me.
Presiona para expandir...
It's been asked in three separate threads numerous amounts of time. TLDR America cares for your rights, and the right to petition a court for redress of grievances is an important one, right there in the first amendment, which is the amendment courts tend to care most about (with the exception of maybe the 14th amendment). If you want to lose your petitioning rights, or get them restricted, courts must be certain that you almost never file any possibly meritorious lawsuit or motion. To use an example of lolcow Acerthorn, this was the breaking point:
Screenshot 2023-03-23 145004.png
Screenshot 2023-03-23 145037.png
The court noted that not only did he never succeed, only few of his over hundred motions even had merit. He has been given every opportunity to better himself (over the period of three years), and in every situation, he has thrown it away. This is the sort of thing that gets your rights taken away. Acerthorn appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision.
Screenshot 2023-03-23 152848.png
Your Girlfriend's Dad dijo:
What's the mechanism by which vexatious litigancy can be declared? I have to imagine it's rather uniform regardless of jurisdiction, as it's a constitutional issue.
Presiona para expandir...
The mechanism, like always, is the court system itself which has both the federal right, and inherent one (see, for example Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980), Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) ) to solve these sorts of problems. The precise conditions differ slightly circuit to circuit. 9th circuit sets it out like so:
"First, the litigant must be given notice and a chance to be heard before the order is entered. Second, the district court must compile "an adequate record for review.". Third, the district court must make substantive findings about the frivolous or harassing nature of the plaintiffs litigation. Finally, the vexatious litigant order "must be narrowly tailored to closely fit the specific vice encountered." "

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty, 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007)

4th circuit, which would be applicable to Mel, sets it out as so:

"The factors to be considered in evaluating an injunction are: (1) the litigant's history of vexatious litigation; (2) whether the litigant has an objective good faith belief in the merit of the action; (3) whether the litigant is represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense or unnecessary burdens on the opposing party and/or the court; and (5) the adequacy of other sanctions."

Tucker, Jr. v. Sergeant SEIBER 17 F.3d 1434 (4th Cir. 1994)

Pat Fried Rice dijo:
The process starts all over again, although a legal kiwi will need to tell if the Court can choose to acknowledge the previous declaration and make it applicable there.
Presiona para expandir...
The court has the inherent power to do so, but it likely will not do so unless prompted

Moving on to Mel stuff
Screenshot 2023-03-23 152317.png
 
Useful_Mistake dijo:
It's basically an opposition, so it doesn't matter.
Presiona para expandir...
It won't matter, but I really wish the court would take notice of the fact that she's shrieking about Null filing a motion without requesting leave of the court, in a self-titled motion that she filed without requesting leave of the court. I mean yeah, the clerk just ignored her shrieking and filed it as a response, but it says it's a motion. She has no basis whatsoever to "move to dismiss" Null's motion - the clerk instructed her to file a response - so that makes it a frivolous motion. But the court's just going to ignore that and pretend it's her response...

I kinda wish that Hardin would file a response to Melinda's motion, pointing out that she's declined to respond, filed a frivolous motion instead, and asking for sanctions. But that'd be playing at her level, and it'd probably just piss the court off.
 
Kosher Salt dijo:
I kinda wish that Hardin would file a response to Melinda's motion, pointing out that she's declined to respond, filed a frivolous motion instead, and asking for sanctions. But that'd be playing at her level, and it'd probably just piss the court off.
Presiona para expandir...
If I was Mr. Hardin, the only response I'd file would be pointing out just how much Mel's cited caselaw helps Null. That's the only part worth addressing, otherwise, yeah, I'd piss the court off again. Reminder for everyone else of the hilarity of when the court told both Mel and Mr. Hardin to shut up and stop bothering him.

Screenshot_20230323-162814_Drive.jpg
 
Useful_Mistake dijo:
If I was Mr. Hardin, the only response I'd file would be pointing out just how much Mel's cited caselaw helps Null. That's the only part worth addressing, otherwise, yeah, I'd piss the court off again. Reminder for everyone else of the hilarity of when the court told both Mel and Mr. Hardin to shut up and stop bothering him.

Ver archivo adjunto 4858636
Presiona para expandir...
Of course. He should file a real response, but I'd be so tempted to inject a comment about how Mel's thumbing her nose at the court's order by continuing with her frivolous bullshit.
 
The problem with the unwillingness to declare vexation is that you can use it to harass other parties.

There should be some lower-bar where the court says "you can keep doing your stupid shit, but we will not even INFORM the other party that you're doing stupid shit until you actually successfully pass some sort of 'is this stupid shit' review".

otherwise it's a perpetual low-grade DOS against someone who is judgement-proof
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo