Lawsuit 2018-12-12 - Melinda Leigh Scott v. Andrew Carlson, Joshua Moon, Sherod DeGrippo -

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blue Jerkop

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It always feels pointless to pick out all the ways that these actions contradict the law and reason because the whole thing is just nonsense.

It's like watching little kids pretend to be astronauts running around with their arms out but chiding them for forgetting to throttle down properly to avoid undue stress after separation of the solid rocket boosters. These people just aren't capable of understanding that the US Constitution and laws do not allow them to sue for hurt fee fees.
 

Vlad the Inhaler

Wallachian Usurper/Fashion Impresario
kiwifarms.net
Courts have numerous tranches of power. There are powers that derive from explicit rules, from statute, from custom, and there are those that derive from the court's inherent powers to control its own docket.

Also, if you were capable of making a coherent argument as to why the court was out of line simply dismissing this on its own, you wouldn't be in the position of your case being thrown out for being completely unintelligible gibberish in the first place.
interesting.
Wow. So after another hour of my life gone, I found the answer. It's in 28 USC 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act. It allows courts to dismiss frivolous or delusional complaints on their own. Ah, the PLRA - not just for inmates anymore!
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Wow. So after another hour of my life gone, I found the answer. It's in 28 USC 1915. The Prison Litigation Reform Act. It allows courts to dismiss frivolous or delusional complaints on their own. Ah, the PLRA - not just for inmates anymore!
I mentioned that a couple responses back. It only directly applies to prisoner litigation, though, and specifically prisoner litigation filed in forma pauperis. Even prisoners can bypass that particular statutory authorization by actually paying the fees.
 

Vlad the Inhaler

Wallachian Usurper/Fashion Impresario
kiwifarms.net
The question wasn't whether the lawsuit would have merit, just whether he might be roped into a lawsuit. She had zero grounds to sue Null et al but she still did it. The good news is that Null is most vulnerable because his government name is attached to the site and suing user X is more of a headache.

The other good news is that no one takes her lolsuits seriously. She's cried wolf so many times I'm not sure she would have a chance even if she came to court with a real claim.
Strictly speaking, if a complaint is facially sufficient then it will be filed and served on you. Yes, you may prevail, but it might cost you to do so.

From there, there are other considerations. Access to the courts is a jealously guarded right in this country. So serious is it that you will not be denied even if you can't pay.

As for frivolous, if there is *any* way you can amend your complaint and properly allege a cause of action, courts will give you wide latitude to refile or amend. The rules call for formal notice to the party with the defective party. Courts should and do try to save pleadings (by leave to amend) primarily, out of concerns for efficiency.

So when does it all become malicious or harassment. The short answer is when you file a pleading that you know is not supported by fact or evidence, or when you know that, after assuming you can prove all your allegations, nobody did anything wrong. You have no grounds for relief.

Either the court or a dedendant can move for sanctions under Rule 11, including attorney's fees and costs. It's a balancing act, and courts are specifically to err on the side of a pro se plaintiff, but that doesn't mean it's always cut and dry.

I mentioned that a couple responses back. It only directly applies to prisoner litigation, though, and specifically prisoner litigation filed in forma pauperis. Even prisoners can bypass that particular statutory authorization by actually paying the fees.
Actually, 28 USC 1915 applies to all IFP plaintiffs. Here's a good law review article on the subject, if this link actually works.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2684&context=flr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reactions: Poiseon and MidUSA

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Actually, 28 USC 1915 applies to all IFP plaintiffs. Here's a good law review article on the subject, if this link actually works.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2684&context=flr
There are parts of it (such as the three strikes provision in (g)) explicitly limited to prisoners. Also, the judge didn't cite the statute in dismissing the case. For that matter, the judge didn't cite FRCP 12(b)(6) either, instead citing 8(a)(2) ("short and plain statement"). So while a lot of the language reads like a dismissal under 12(b)(6), the court is explicit about "pleading requirements," particularly the heightened pleading requirements for a defamation claim, and only cites Rule 8.

Confusing the issue more, the court opens its analysis by saying: "Scott's allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]" This of course implicates 12(b)(6).

So I'm not really sure what the court actually did here. It may or may not be based on 1915(e)(2), although that statute isn't cited. It may be based on FRCP 12(b)(6), although only 8(a)(2) is explicitly cited.

I sense the judge was rather impatient about the whole matter.
 

Vlad the Inhaler

Wallachian Usurper/Fashion Impresario
kiwifarms.net
There are parts of it (such as the three strikes provision in (g)) explicitly limited to prisoners. Also, the judge didn't cite the statute in dismissing the case. For that matter, the judge didn't cite FRCP 12(b)(6) either, instead citing 8(a)(2) ("short and plain statement"). So while a lot of the language reads like a dismissal under 12(b)(6), the court is explicit about "pleading requirements," particularly the heightened pleading requirements for a defamation claim, and only cites Rule 8.

Confusing the issue more, the court opens its analysis by saying: "Scott's allegations fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted[.]" This of course implicates 12(b)(6).

So I'm not really sure what the court actually did here. It may or may not be based on 1915(e)(2), although that statute isn't cited. It may be based on FRCP 12(b)(6), although only 8(a)(2) is explicitly cited.

I sense the judge was rather impatient about the whole matter.

Oh, make no mistakes, this judge completely pulled this one out of his ass. I'm just thinking it might have been better if he'd allowed it to go ahead.

If he had, maybe we'd see three defendants all moving for sanctions and attorney's fees? Now *that's* how you teach somebody a lesson. I know nothing about it, but I'm pretty sure you have to prove scrupulous compliance with earlier dismissals. Let me explain.

Under 1915(e), she's entitled to notice that her complaint is legally insufficient and an opportunity to cure. If it's dismissed the way the judge did here, when she refiles it, maybe you can't get sanctions and attorney's fees. I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT, I don't know what exactly has to happen before you get sanctioned. Whatever it is, I'm sure she's close, if not already there.

Until you really mash their nose down into their latest fresh, steamy pile, they're never going to learn. And $5-10k in sanctions is a deep pile. So what if she doesn't have it? She'll be scared shitless for a while.
 

An Ghost

Covered in sheet
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If he had, maybe we'd see three defendants all moving for sanctions and attorney's fees? Now *that's* how you teach somebody a lesson. I know nothing about it, but I'm pretty sure you have to prove scrupulous compliance with earlier dismissals. Let me explain.
The judge had the choice to draw this out and get a shrieking kike harpy in his courtroom or dismiss it. He had the option to drag 3 people needlessly to be anywhere near this raving lunatic. Or just let it go. I know which one I would pick.
Until you really mash their nose down into their latest fresh, steamy pile, they're never going to learn. And $5-10k in sanctions is a deep pile. So what if she doesn't have it? She'll be scared shitless for a while.
She’ll probably turn right around and sue him. Bitch is crazy.
 

nvrwastetree

Identifies as an attack helicopter
kiwifarms.net
>Sherod DeGrippo
is that the fat ex admin girl of ED who tried (and failed) to sell out the site for shekels a few years ago?
Yep. Sherrod hippo ran, owned and then eventually led to the downfall of ED, which in turn became knowyourmeme. Now everyone rightfully hates her fat ugly ass. She's like the Meg Griffin of the internet, and I'm honestly surprised she doesn't have a thread here. But back on topic, I can't believe this idiotic cuntrag is trying to sue null and hippo again.
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Yep. Sherrod hippo ran, owned and then eventually led to the downfall of ED, which in turn became knowyourmeme. Now everyone rightfully hates her fat ugly ass. She's like the Meg Griffin of the internet, and I'm honestly surprised she doesn't have a thread here. But back on topic, I can't believe this idiotic cuntrag is trying to sue null and hippo again.
She already lost again without anyone even having to respond. It's pretty impressive to pull that off in both federal court and state court. You practically have to write your pleadings in your own feces on paper placemats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino