- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
The last 5 pages are extremely based and the lemmings put too much stock into “serious legal discussion” as if any serious prediction made so far has been remotely correct.
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
can't you go shit up the regular greer thread then
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
Sir, my stellar legal analysis is the cornerstone of this thread.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
My prediction is that the judge will get an angry phone call from one of those 3 appeals court judges about how kiwifarms is a nazi site that has gunned down 6 gajillion trannies and how he needs to make Russell win at any cost. The Floridian judge will then smoke meth in court and send an alligator to Josh's home address. And yes, the term alligator is to be taken literally.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2015
That sounds like one of the last conversations between Ronnie and Ethan Ralph.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
Well I'm getting sick of waiting so lets have a poll of how everyone thinks this lawsuit will finish
Late: The lawsuit and it's appeals continue for years, with us continuing to crowdfund Null so he can stay in the game
Feels: The courts rule against Greer with prejudice and he runs off with his buttplug tail between his legs
Lunacy: The courts rule against Null
Optimistic: Scotus decides to have a public hearing about the case, and the level of attention and scrutiny makes most people aware of the Kiwifarms which now can clear it's name
Late: The lawsuit and it's appeals continue for years, with us continuing to crowdfund Null so he can stay in the game
Feels: The courts rule against Greer with prejudice and he runs off with his buttplug tail between his legs
Lunacy: The courts rule against Null
Optimistic: Scotus decides to have a public hearing about the case, and the level of attention and scrutiny makes most people aware of the Kiwifarms which now can clear it's name
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I seriously don't like the idea of having to defend wholesale copying of a work, like the song, but cases involving Google Drive links have been (other than the Tenth) unanimous about Google being the proper party and mere links not being infringing. It might be that a catalog of links, like The Pirate Bay, wouldn't pass muster in the U.S. but an isolated link is really not such a thing. If you want content on a Google Drive gone, you DMCA Google and they immediately take it down. Meanwhile, even if Null had taken down the link or broken it so it wasn't a direct link, the content would still be up.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
More specifically, here’s what will happen next:
Josh is invited to appear at the court's address the coming Sunday, without being told the time or location. After a period of exploration he finds the court in the attic of a dilapidated working-class tenement block, at the back of a young washerwoman's home. Josh is rebuked for his lateness and mistaken for a house painter rather than a forum ooperator. He arouses the assembly's hostility after a passionate plea about the absurdity of the trial and the falseness of the accusation. The proceedings are interrupted by Greer sexually assaulting the washerwoman in a corner. Josh notices that all the assembly members are wearing pins on their lapels which he interprets as signifying their membership of a secret organisation.
The following Sunday Josh goes to the courtroom again, but the court is not in session. The washerwoman gives him information about the process and attempts to seduce him before a law student, Greer, who assaulted her the previous week, takes her away, claiming her to be his mistress. The woman's husband, a court usher, then takes Josh on a tour of the court offices, which ends after Josh becomes extremely weak in the presence of other court officials and defendants.
Josh is visited by his uncle Adolf, who lives in the country. Worried by the rumors about his nephew, Adolf introduces Josh to Nick Rekieta, a sickly and bedridden lawyer tended to by Lady Rackets, a young woman who shows an immediate attraction to Josh. During a conversation between Adolf and Nick about Josh’s case, Lady Rackets calls Josh away for a sexual encounter. Afterwards, Josh meets his angry uncle outside, who claims that Josh’s lack of respect for the advocate, by leaving the meeting and romantically engaging with the woman who is apparently Nick’s mistress, has hurt his case.
Josh has become increasingly preoccupied by his case, to the detriment of his work. He has further meetings with Adolf, and continues to engage in discreet trysts with Lady Rackets, but the advocate's work appears to be having no effect on the proceedings. On the forum, one of Josh’s clients recommends he seek the advice of Hardin, the court's official painter. Hardin outlines the options he can help Josh pursue: indefinite postponement of the process, or a temporary acquittal that could at any point result in re-arrest. Unequivocal acquittal is not a viable option.
Suspicious of the advocate's motives and the apparent lack of progress, Josh finally decides to dismiss Nick and take control of matters himself. Upon arriving at Nick’s office, he meets a downtrodden merchant, Vic Mignogna, who offers Josh some insight from a fellow defendant's perspective. Vic’s case has continued for five years and he has gone from being a successful businessman to being almost bankrupt and is virtually enslaved by his dependence on the lawyer, with whom he appears to be sexually involved. The lawyer mocks Vic in front of Josh for his dog-like subservience. This experience further poisons Josh’s opinion of his lawyer.
On the eve of Josh’s forty-first birthday, two men arrive at his apartment. The three walk through the city, and Josh catches a brief glimpse of Greer. They arrive at a small quarry outside the city, and the men kill Josh, stabbing him in the heart with a butcher's knife while strangling him. Josh summarizes his situation with his last words: "Like a dog!"
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Bro, I can't describe how much fun it is to see the 100th "but what if system collapses?" post in the last three pages alone. If you want to explore an idea, go ahead, but none of you are doing that. You are just repeating "what if system collapse, tho, he he so smart", "but what if judge break all the rule? Haha betya didn't think about this!", and finally "haha he he this a lolsuit, I hope everyone suffers, ha ha he hee, let me spam the thread with just this".
If you have an interesting idea; contribute and explain it fully. Otherwise, kill yourself.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
I've been looking through some of the recent cases handled by the florida judge. I don't see anything that really stands out as notable or unusual in any of the orders I can download on courtlistener, but that doesn't necessarily indicate much. There might be supreme autism behind the pacer paywall.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
There are two: the actual Article III judge, Margaret Catharine Rodgers, and the guy actually doing stuff currently, Zachary C. Bolitho, who will be handling non-dispositive motions (like the current scheduling nonsense and other procedural things that do not end the case if decided) unless both parties consent to actual trial before him.
I like one of his rules:
- Unrepresented parties and counsel seeking to utilize any courtroom technology for purposes of a hearing or trial should contact the Courtroom Deputy to test the equipment prior to the scheduled hearing or trial.
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
What does he mean by unrepresented counsel? Also I'm surprised this rule is even qualified, as I've seen seasoned and professional A/V nerds run into complete brick walls trying to set up on another group's or building's system. Especially when government is involved since they tend to just Frankenstein on to whatever is there rather than removing everything and starting from scratch.
I can't even imagine a Greer or mountain jew even attempting it.
I can't even imagine a Greer or mountain jew even attempting it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It doesn't say that.
Because people keep showing up and fucking it up and wasting everyone's time. Hence you are supposed to show up in advance to make sure your shit works.
He did. He couldn't show his "evidence" the court wasn't even interested in because he brought a ludicrously short HDMI cable that couldn't even connect.
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
It says "unrepresented parties and counsel," if they mean "counsel and unrepresented parties," they should say that. Ambiguous language is one of the big reasons the justice system is utterly fucked.
Honestly, Greer showing up with a ludicrously short HDMI cable is both hilarious, but also pretty low on the scale of fuckups. I would half expect him to have his "evidence" on a Zune or LaserDisc.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Bro, you just flipped the sentence around. You didn't end up changing it to be clearer.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
I mean it's a little clearer. "unrepresented parties and counsel" could be "(unrepresented parties) and counsel" or "unrepresented (parties and counsel)"
- Joined
- May 4, 2022
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it literally does change the meaning. If you say "unrepresented parties and counsel" it can mean unrepresented parties and unrepresented counsel (which is what made me bring it up in the first place, cause I didn't know if that was a thing) OR it can mean unrepresented parties and, counsel (represented or not).
Same as if i say "stop all red cars and trucks", do you stop a green truck? It's ambiguous. If i say "stop all trucks and red cars," then clearly you'd stop a green truck.
Again I'm not trying to argue or be a dick, I literally thought it meant unrepresented counsel which doesn't make since and I assumed it was some legal thing I didn't know about.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
Oh, I can spend way more than five paragraphs regaling you on why the court system is just a giant Kafka hamster wheel.
The purpose of any system is what it does. So, the purpose of the US court system is to trap citizens and small businesses in its loving embrace and financially ruin them. Only three entities enjoy using the court system: 1) feds who are literally paid to navigate it, 2) corporations and banks who get those juicy Blackrock bucks, and 3) pro se welfare queens with a hobby for vexatious litigation.
The feds are obvious. They comprise the system itself and the state when it brings charges against you. They take your money and use it to financially ruin anyone who becomes the target of their acrimony. Even if you eventually prove your innocence, exposure to the process itself is the punishment.
The corporations and banks hooked up directly to the Federal Reserve drip are all in a perpetual state of suing each other. Disney’s suing Sony who’s suing Viacom who’s suing the Koche brothers who’s suing Soros who’s suing the state of Florida who’s suing Disney. It’s an anticompetitive system. Any newcomer corporation that enters the arena needs to be prepared to endure the perpetual lawfare. The results of the lawsuits barely matter because the punishments of the court usually amount to a slap on the wrist when compared to the years of being forced to engage with the process. Corporations take tax subsidies and the indirect tax of freshly printed money and then use your money to finance their safety blanket against competition.
Finally, you have the pro se nuisances. Again, funded using your tax dollars, if you’re noticing a pattern. They subsist on a pittance from the system. Melinda is on welfare, Greer is on disability, and Acerthorn is on both. Vexatious litigants have nothing, so they are free to engage with the system pretty much consequence-free. This is because the court’s “official” punishments are all pretty much slaps on the wrist. But, as I pointed out previously - the actual punishment of the system is the financial burden of the process itself. Except, these people are exempt from that little burden, aren’t they? Well I guess it just sucks to suck that Greer can just punish Josh anytime he feels like making an insane rambling to the court. If Josh commits the high crime of deciding to ignore the system and not waste resources addressing patent bullshit, he’d better be prepared for the court to randomly unleash the wrath of a thousand suns on him. Isn’t it interesting how the courts usually reserve their harshest punishments for people who haven’t adequately engaged with the system?
Another benefit pro se nuisances enjoy is the occasional pro bono representation from lawyers when the system has decided the subject of their acrimony hasn’t been punished enough. Your mind goes to the DJF but my mind goes to Kyle Rittenhouse because he is still being punished by the process in the form of civil wrongful death lawsuits, all funded by Soros, of course.
In conclusion, it’s obvious to me that the system isn’t broken. It accomplishes it’s purpose. You quickly realize the pretense about justice is just propaganda when you study what the system actually does. Have I satisfied your burning curiosity or should I still kill myself?
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2017
Putting "unrepresented parties" second in the sentence makes it clear that "unrepresented" only applies to "parties" and not both "parties" and "counsel".
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
Has anyone checked pacer for the new thing yet?
Just because you think that's how English works that's not how everyone agrees how English works.