The Really Big Mean Dog School of Law: Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Consideration of Death Penalty

-I can write an amicus brief, as well as my motion to quash, contemporaneously – Arizona

Hello Class.  Professor Kelly is very busy today so please sit down and take notes.  Today’s lesson will be on frivolous motions that have no bearing on anything ever.  Apparently in Arizona, you can bring the exact same motion before the court eleventy billion times in the hopes that the judge might let one slip past.  Well, this Law Professor is not having it so I am bringing a motion to quash the motion to quash.

First, a quick lesson on motions.

Motion in United States law. In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case.

A motion to quash is a request to a court to render a previous decision of that court or a lower judicial body null or invalid. It can arise out of mistakes made by any lawyer in a court proceeding.

A motion to quash in the case of The Great State of Arizona and King Juan 1 V Stabby Anal Arias is a request to the court to render a perfectly valid decision invalid because the Queen of the Universe is starting to see that needle in her dreams. 

Once a motion has been filed, unfortunately the presiding judge has no choice but the read the stupid fucking thing, laugh hysterically, pass it around to the office so they can all laugh hysterically and then stamp a big fat DENIED on it.

Now I have been a Law Professor for weeks and I have never seen a motion that is 59 pages long ever. That was not a type-o. Alfred E. is pulling out all the stops on this one. If he is going down it is going to be in flames since this is possibly the most insane and incoherent motion that this Law Professor has ever read. It’s almost like he let pigvomit write it.

Because I feel really bad that Judge Stephens has to read and rule on this thing, I have decided to bring my own goddamn motion. My Motion To Quash the Motion to Quash the Consideration of the Death Penalty appears below. I managed to come in at somewhere under 59 pages, so no world record for me.

Professor Kelly Really Big Mean Dog McFadden #666666
Really Big Mean Dog School Of Law
52 Main Street Rockford
Buttfuck No Where
Planet Earth- Mostly

Attorney of record for defense of actual lawyers everywhere and probably the constitution
This motion is brought forth in answer to war and peace uh, I mean the 59 page motion filed by Alfred E. Nurmi and his band of lackey’s et al.

It is the contention of the Really Big Mean Dog School of Law that the Motion to dismiss State’s Notice Of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty Due to Continued State Misconduct is flawed on several levels and therefore I respectfully present my motion to quash their motion to quash the states motion of intent to seek the death penalty.

I make this motion based on Stabby’s choice to continue to engage in a persistent pattern of general fuckery which has left her in a position where she has not a leg to stand on.
When considering this motion I ask the court to consider only real facts and not the ones that Stabby and her minions have made up. You know, like the fact that she almost cut Travis’ head off. Finally, given the ever changing nature of the stories she makes up, I reserve the right to supplement this motion any time I feel like it.

Summary of Argument.

The bitch did it.
The bitch admitted she did it.
The bitch does not have a non made up mitigating factor anywhere.

Relevant Facts

She stabbed a man 27 times, cut his neck so deep his head almost fell off and shot him.
She did it because she was a jealous narcissistic butthurt bitch.
She couldn’t care less that she killed a man.

Other Relevant Facts

Someone made up a fake account for Detective Flores Wife with the handle Imbossthatway
We all know that it was Sandra Webber
She is doing everything in her power to get herself put into the middle of this trial
She may or may not be hot for the defendant
She is trying very hard to ruin the reputation of a fine detective and his very lovely wife
She needs to stop before shit gets real.
All the other crap in the motion to dismiss has already been seen about as many times as Stabby’s cooch.

Facts Relating to the State Letting Potential Mitigation Witnesses Know That if They Lied They Would Be Charged With Perjury

Patty Womack was warned that she would be questioned on the murder money she got for selling pictures to various media outlets. Patty was worried since she is on Welfare and she could be charged and her free money taken away, which would cause her to not be able to procure drugs.
Matt McCartney was warned that he would be charged with perjury for lying about Travis being a pedophile.
Mom of Stabby was told she would be questioned about all the non beatings and all the fun things she had to say about her psycho daughter during police questioning.


The defenses actions in the case tell a tale of misconduct and fame seeking which started long before this trial ever did. As the facts of the above very obviously demonstrate, this motion should have never been brought forth and I urge the court to regard it for what it is; another waste of a lot of perfectly good paper and yet another stall tactic by the defense. I request that the motion be quashed.

Respectfully Submitted this 4th day of October 2014

Kelly M McFadden
Professor of Law and Dean of Fuckery
Really Big Mean Dog School Of Law.

And there you have it class, a perfectly written motion to quash. Class dismissed.

PayPal Donate Button


25 Responses to The Really Big Mean Dog School of Law: Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Consideration of Death Penalty

  1. shenson1209 says:

    Excellent Professor! Looking forward to the next class. Please no homework!

  2. Essem says:

    Kelly loving your blog. I’m in Australia and have been following trial from beginning. Have to admit I first got interested when I saw the 48Hours story and actually believed the Ninja story! Joined the Calls for Justice blog and watched the trial and saw the TRUTH! Your blogs referring to Pig Vomit sent me on a research frenzy to work out who that was. I’m very confident its Sandra Webber. Hope I get an A+ for that non-assigned assignment.

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Hai Essem. Congratulations. You passed the bar. Very impressed you sussed out Sandra Webber. Here I thought I was being all covert and shit. Thanks for reading. There will be tons to come.

  3. Joan Soap says:

    Another brilliant and entertaining lecture, Professor! You make law so easy to understand!

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Hai Joan. Thank you so much. As always, don’t forget this could count for all/ some/ or none of your grade.

  4. Deb says:

    Uhm, Ms. Dean, M’aam…can I please get an extra credit assignment, if I submit a motion to object to your motion to quash nurmi’s motion to quash the three-holed wonder’s imminent death penalty edification, motioned on previously by Mr. Juanderful?? My extra-credit motion would, of course, be contemporaneous with your motion and the other nurmi motions…but would definitely not be contemporaneous, nor edifying, with, or to, or to wit – even – Mr. Juanderful’s motion (because he knows a hell of a lot more than I do and he’s never been in a fog of any kind)…
    Uhm, I’m not sure, but I think I may have possibly…. but your yelling and raising your voice at me during that last exam made me foggier than ever…you know, when I was passing tootsie pops & IM’s out during said exam…uhm, and I may/may not have flunked that friggin’ test…and if I did fail that test, I would rather DIE than take it again!!! So how about that extra credit thing and call us even, ok??!!!

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Deb: As my star pupil I do not want to have to de-edify you in front of the rest of the class. I am intrigued by your motion to object to my motion to quash nurmi’s motion to quash the three-holed wonder’s imminent death penalty edification which was obviously motioned on previously by King Juan 1. As long as your motion includes but is not limited to the terms hotti biscotti, infer and imply, and you can contemporaneously make up at least three words while passing out toblerone bars I will accept your extra credit assignment. For your edification you actually got extra credit for the whole tootsie pop thing, but don’t tell the rest of the class. You did however flunk due to the IM’s.

  5. Katprint says:

    I enjoyed your post, but a quick observation: The defense claim that mitigation witnesses were intimidated into not being willing to testify is untrue. Jodi Arias’ parents did show up at last time at the penalty hearings expecting to be called as a mitigation witness as did exboyfriend Darryl Brewer. It was Jodi Arias and/or her defense team who decided not to call them as witnesses, presumably because any favorable testimony they could have given would have been outweighed by the negative testimony elicited on cross-exam. For example, the parents would probably deny abusing Jodi and they are direct eyewitnesses to all of the violent attacks by Jodi against her siblings and her own mother as well as Jodi’s extreme/intensive drug use (yes, many teenagers experiment with drugs, but how many 12 year olds are trying to grow their own marijuana plants on their roof?) Darryl Brewer is also vulnerable to further cross exam about that mysterious remote that Jodi had to go back to his house to give to him. Was that the remote to a DVD that he bought from her / she gave to him? Is it the same make/model as the DVD player stolen from Jodi’s grandparents’ house at the same time as their .25 handgun?

    What is NOT being claimed: That the defense legally subpoenaed mitigation witnesses but those witnesses disobeyed the subpoena. With regard to out-of-state witnesses, there is a process that can be utilized which basically involves asking the state where the out-of-state witness resides to issue a subpoena from that state’s court requiring the out-of-state witness to appear and give testimony at a hearing in that state. Note: BOTH sides can attend the hearing and question the out-of-state witness. That out-of-state deposition can be videotaped and the video played for the jury. As far as I can tell, the defense never made any effort whatsoever to serve any kind of subpoenas on mitigation witnesses to compel their appearance at any hearings.

  6. bigmeannurse says:

    Great motion to quash, mush and mash the defense writ of whatever. I looked through the stacks and dewy decimal racks at the library like you asked and could not find a single reference for pig vomit composition. Therefore we may safely assume pigvomit contains no human DNA or brain matter and de-edifying or even contemporaneously believing (it’s) anything beyond a first degree gene puddle life form would be an insult.

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Hai!!! Nothing? Not one single reference. Well shit. I guess we have to go with that then. First stage gene puddle life form it is.

  7. Joan Soap says:

    Professor, I know this is off topic, but I’ve just seen a report that a man running in an inflatable bubble was rescued yesterday off the coast of Florida. Is there any truth in the rumor that he was trying to escape being beaten by a crazy psycho stalker armed with a flounder?

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Dammit, I thought we had her on a fifty one fifty hold. Someone call the state, she’s loose. Thanks for the heads up Joan.

  8. Deb says:

    Uuuhmmm…I’m getting a little foggy over here…and that’s known to be dangerous!!!! Some of my classmates are definitely…and contemporaneously…dis-edifying me…and NO ONE wants to abuse me that way!!! Uhm, so classmates, with all due edification, please stop trying to take MY dean/professor/lawyer/writer friend’s attention away from me…because I AM the “star” pupil, even if I do have multi/daily fogs, do/do not pay attention in class, and may/may not have a gun & a sharp knife hidden in my (or someone else’s) locker/closet/backpack/purse…I’m just sayin’…so, if you don’t want me to file a bunch of motions to throw at you…stop being so contemporaneously edifying & shit!!!!!
    P.S. She likes me better than you guys, ’cause I may/may not stalk her if she doesn’t…
    P.P.S. Just ’cause you guys show up on time, hand in your assignments, work hard for your grades, ergo – to wit – deserve to be ‘star pupils’ – she likes me better ’cause I’m a ticking time bomb…and she KNOWS it. 😉

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      BEST. POST. EVER. BWahahahahahahahahaha!

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Now Deb, we’ve spoken about this and you are perfectly aware that only fully loaded automatic weapons are allowed in class. No knives, no sharp instruments and definitely no camera’s. We don’t want another incident like with the janitor last week now do we?

  9. limey99 says:

    Look, although reading your blog is the favourite part of my day, you are doing nothing to help my stress incontinence….nearly peed my pants this morning! Any bills for Depends will be forwarded forthwith.
    A Canadian/British super fan.

  10. karen30036 says:

    Soooo funny

  11. sillyhaha71 says:

    Professor Kelly,

    I wanna submit a motion to forbid the following words or phrases from being uttered during trial:

    * Pedophile/Pedophilia
    * Edify
    * De-edify
    * Contemporaneous
    * Anal
    * I don’t know.
    * How did that make you feel?
    * Of course not.
    * Fog

    • reallybigmeandog says:

      Hai Silly. I have reviewed your motion in limine to forbid the afore mentioned words and or phrases and have found that your motion has merit based on the following case law. Mothers V broken vase re I don’t know which also encompasses but is not limited to not me, I wasn’t there and some random ninjas. This case also covers of course not. I can also site case law for Anal, contemporaneously, De-Edify, Pedophile and all of it’s derivatives as well as fog. Unfortunately there is no case law of record to cover Edify unless it is used incorrectly in which case Stabby V Oxford Dictionary would apply. There is also no case law for how does that make you feel. It is this professors decision that the motion is valid and all the above words and or phrases are hereby excluded from trial.

      • sillyhaha71 says:

        Whoooo Hooooooo!

        Thank you, Professor.

        ( It’s probably really bad form to yelp in class!)

  12. Deb says:

    I object!!! I think silly just took away my entire vocabulary – which I have practiced since even before I enrolled in this law school…and I am citing my reference: “How to talk like a two-bit, pompous-ass, half-baked, legalese spewing attorney impersonator – FOR DUMMIES”, published by You’re An Idiot If You Randomly Buy This House, price in US Dollars $0.75…not sold in Canada or anywhere else people may have enough sense to realize this is only good in some unnamed States in the USA.

  13. You’re so cool! I do not believe I’ve read through something like this before.
    So wonderful to discover another person with some
    unique thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. many thanks for starting this up.
    This site is one thing that’s needed on the internet, someone
    with some originality!

Varmt News Network

It's the Internet.


Just another site

Asleep in Left Field-My Life

4 out of 5 Friends recommend this site

Out in left field

(Totally fictional) Drama Queen Stories


sometimes, there are monsters walking amongst us

Varmt News Network

It's the Internet.


Just another site

Asleep in Left Field-My Life

4 out of 5 Friends recommend this site

Out in left field

(Totally fictional) Drama Queen Stories


sometimes, there are monsters walking amongst us

%d bloggers like this: