They simple accepted every retarded thing Greer filed as being true, and then ruled verbatim down the checklist of cases every lawyer and paralegal is forced to read in Law School and Community college. There was no analysis, there was no thought on the consequences. Just a boiler plate fuck you, that was probably written by Legal Clerks.
True. I mean, if you really think about it, is there any legal analysis aside from page 21? Everything before that is background on the case, parties, and how copyright/pro se cases/complaints are handled, 21 addresses the main disagreement with the district court, 22 is merely a repeat of 21, and 23 is the actual order reversing the case.
It would NOT however result in "Disbarment". Disbarment is an extraordinary remedy for severe breaches in ethics, which vigorous defense does not reach. At a minimum If the judge was feeling vindictive the cost of arguing the stay proceeding would be incurred to the defense.
I never said a motion for stay would result in disbarment. I said that your defamation theory could, which I earnestly believe in. Giuliani's ability to practice law was
suspended for merely vigorously pursuing avenues his client demanded, avenues that weren't even novel legal theories.
To this day, judges work to try to disbar him everywhere he has a license to practice for this same reason. Imagine how worse it could be for exploring a novel and patently outrageous legal theory. Even if you disagree that it is patently outrageous and Rule 11 sanction worthy, you are still facing a risk that a judge would see it this way. There is no judge in the United States who would consider judges following FRCP as being proof of damages in an unrelated defamation case.
It put's it on the record that everything in Greers background summary is under challenge, and this is something the judge will consider in future rulings.
Or you can challenge it as it becomes relevant and stop yourself from losing thousands of dollars in a novel defamation action you aren't likely to win. I really think Null should win, but fighting against newspapers? Not very likely. Individual offenders would be better, but the media is incestuous, and has done its best to raise them to be public figures of some effect. Would that suffice? I'd argue not, but it remains to be seen.
Its becoming an existential threat
I think I can agree to that.
Question for @Useful_Mistake or @AnOminous: In a civil case, it defaults to a bench trial unless either party requests a jury right?
My read of FRCP Rule 38 suggests that both parties essentially waived that right by not requesting it. It would default to a bench trial, then, yes.
Would it be in any advantageous for Null to request a jury trial or stick with a bench trial?
The District Judge was sympathetic to Greer's plights, so that's an issue. On the other hand, the same judge did not think that Russ plead his case well enough even on the lenientest standard, so there could be hope here. I'd stick with bench trial, but Skordas has to judge the cost-to-benefit in the risk.
