Wasn't he effectively humored along with every other case he had? It may not be a complete lie for him to say that he doesn't know how the legal system works as he always had someone willing to clean up after him and wipe his ass.
Bro is a paralegal. He should know how the system works.
Also, does he still have the ability to just withdraw his lawsuit?
Yes, but he would have to file his withdrawal in Florida. Like
@mindlessobserver said, he can't withdraw in Utah anymore.
He seems to think just FILING a motion to stay automatically gives you a stay?
Interestingly enough, Mr. Hardin informed him at least twice that he was wrong on this. So, it's not like Russ really didn't know.
Case goes to SCOTUS and the Kiwi Farms now has a chance to set a historic legal precedent.
Troons seethe and call journoscum allies to report on this historic and retarded case so that it can be archived on Wikipedia.
Normies get alerted, some look into who the fuck Russel Greer is.
It is revealed that he tried to sue Taylor Swift and wrote a retarded book about it.
Swifties activate, giant shitshow initiated.
Clarence Thomas reads Russel's stupid filings in the most deadpan way possible.
Will it all go down like that? Probably not, but you know what? It could and it's fun to dream...
Personally I hope he replies to SCOTUS (deadline in April) case with just a loveletter to the four Female Supreme Court Justices. Given the entire Fremantle case was essentially over this thing, I can believe he'd do it.
Also why the fuck did the Magistrate Judge call nool "pro se?" The motion was filed by Matthew fucking Hardin.
Like I said, not a legal document if someone doesn't mislabel the party.
Is there any legal journalists who have taken interest in this case and begun to dissect it to a wider audience?
One law professor at Standford dissected the 10th Circuit's ruling and expressed his shock that it overwrote like 40 years of copyright caselaw.
Going to need you to explain the joke, sorry. Is it because changing venues isn't a "jurisdiction issue"?
He's arguing about something Null never did. He doesn't understand the difference between a Rule 12 (b) defense and a 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404 motion to change venue. Mr. Hardin understands, the court understood, but he doesn't. Also, like
@AnOminous said, jurisdiction and venue are completely different issues. Funnier still, Rule 12 (b) (3) has a "improper venue" defense, which I think was what Russ was talking about, but he mistakenly spent the argument talking about Rule 12 (b) (1), (2) lack of jurisdiction.
tldr: The entire segment is pointless because it attacks a thing Null never did, and it's so stupid that it's actually funny
but I think the appeals decision will be considered the "law of the case" even if it wouldn't otherwise apply in that circuit.
Read
@mindlessobserver and
@Tathagata 's post on this. There's a good chance you're incorrect about that.