Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 14.4%
  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 12.0%
  • This Year

    Votes: 73 15.7%
  • Next Year

    Votes: 156 33.5%
  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 113 24.3%

  • Total voters
    465
They also may want to revisit the Napster decision considering the tenth circuit taking that and massively broadening the nature of copyright liability to implicating a URL. That is a huge problem for everyone. Be they Google or an Autistic little gossip forum.
I want it to be accepted just to watch all the big fuckers have to file Amicea Curia briefs or whatever it is in support of Kiwi Farms. A website.
 
I know he would just double down on his victim complex, but maybe every judge in the country will recognize him by name and blacklist him just like how he was blacklisted by every hooker in Nevada.
The only way he would is if he got punished, guess what he never will. As far as I know he has never had to face the consequences of his actions.

I love this forum and hate greer, but I think greer is going to win. I didn't think he would win the other case and he did. I didn't think cloud fare would drop this forum and they did.

I have high hopes but low expectations for this case.

Let's have hope farms faithful, it's all we can have.
 
I want it to be accepted just to watch all the big fuckers have to file Amicea Curia briefs or whatever it is in support of Kiwi Farms. A website.
I'm still rolling that this quite possibly means Greer is suing a piece of inanimate computer hardware since the site is hosted on a server. The wording is so fucking ass.
 
Anyways, here's the judicial rule of the Supreme Court that directs how the justices are supposed to consider petitions:
I'll note that one of the most famous pro se petitions, the one in Gideon v. Wainwright (the one that established the right to counsel in criminal cases even for the poor) was a handwritten petition.
I really want it to happen, I want to see Sotomayor make of an ass of herself and call Null a pizza eating racist or something.
Or even better, actually side with us. Imagine a unanimous smackdown saying you dumb fucking Tenth Circuit dipshits, fuck yourselves!

Yeah I'm getting a bit ahead of myself there.
 
I love this forum and hate greer, but I think greer is going to win. I didn't think he would win the other case and he did. I didn't think cloud fare would drop this forum and they did.
That means our luck is about to come in, so it's time to go all in, or are you some kind of dirty doubting RAT? You know what they call testifying in court? That's right, CIVIC duty.
 
Screenshot_20240229-165716_(1).png

"Free speech and fair use cannot form the basis of liability in copyright" will be carved onto the tombstone of the United States
 
If they fuck it up and make fair use a death penalty, blame the EFF, I asked them for help first.
I've emailed EFF a few incredibly bitter messages calling them faggots and have received "Thank you for bringing this to our attention" emails.
knowing this, it's rather peculiar the hardin still chose to reference the eff.

The petition is actually really well-done, disregarding a couple rough patches.
agreed. the footnote that begins on page 26 and continues on page 27 was painful to read.

There is a singular typo... i think it's over........
there are more errors than a single typo, but they're easily forgiven due to the sheer complexity of the petition.
 
but I wonder if getting BTFO'd by the Supreme Court would be enough to get Greer to stop being a vexatious litigant?
Are you kidding? This case implicates some pretty huge questions of copyright in the digital era. If the USSC takes it up, Greer v. Moon will be cited on pretty much every copyright case in America going foreword. Shit lips will be FAMOUS. Famous FOREVER.
 
That means our luck is about to come in, so it's time to go all in, or are you some kind of dirty doubting RAT? You know what they call testifying in court? That's right, CIVIC duty.
This is the time in Blackjack when you actually DO put it all on green, fuck red and black.
 
By" and Kiwi Farms, a website" does he mean Lolcow LLC, or us, the users of the site? I'm actually curious because of the wording.
Let's hope that the SC can help us figure that one out too. It'd be hilarious if it's the actual users and we can turn it into a room full of tards pointing and laughing at Russ, which is a W by default.

this is a bold and ambitious move. I honestly hope this doesn't backfire on you nor the Internet at large
It's taken a village retard fighting a village of retards to get us to this point. Such bold action must require a certain level of baked-in retardation or else it all potentially implodes under it's own stupidity.

I mean really think about it: the precedent already set by the 10th if this is left to stand is weapons-grade retarded and there's potential to set even more nuclear-grade retarded precedent if the SC decides to take this up in full. It's a wonderfully balanced house-of-tards.

We truly live in the chudliest of timelines at this point.

Null literally announced his intention to do this weeks ago.

https://lolcowfund.hardin.law/
Just quoting this as another reminder to the tards to do their part and help fund the effort.
 
Last edited:
Are you kidding? This case implicates some pretty huge questions of copyright in the digital era. If the USSC takes it up, Greer v. Moon will be cited on pretty much every copyright case in America going foreword. Shit lips will be FAMOUS. Famous FOREVER.
I'm hoping he ends up more infamous than famous.
 
I am not optimistic.

On one hand, the Republican judge majority who tend to be much more pro 1st amendment and more objective than hyper-partisan judges in lower courts.
On the other hand, Republican judges and politicians have shown in the past that if given a choice between the 1st amendment and helping big businesses line their pockets, they will chose big business every single time.

Also, courts have previously ruled the 1st amendment doesn't protect copyright infringement. Unless SCOTUS wants to fuck off stare decisis like they did when they repealed Roe, there is no way they will rule differently here.
 
Last edited:
Back