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

[Irene and 22 others]

The idea is to get some people who can positively influence clerks or people around them to a potential case.

You could try setting yourself on fire outside of the Supreme Court. That seems to be a popular way of drawing attention to stupid shit these days.

This actually reminded me of something. Parts of the Supreme Court are trying to make it so that the cases that get media attention don't get reviewed. Majority of SCOTUS rejected this, but that still is an interesting clique forming among the justices. "Fourth, the dissent contends that we should exercise special “caution” when considering whether to intervene in “high-profile cases.” [...] Nor does it explain why we should reserve an added new measure of caution for “high profile” matters alone. I would have thought that, as judges, we should neither deliberately seek out nor evade “high-profile” disputes, but afford all litigants who come before us their lawful due" See Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (2024) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in the grant of stay)

It's difficult to disagree with Gorsuch's reasoning there. If you show either preference or disfavor based on media attention it allows forces outside of the court to control its behavior. After looking at that case, it's quite clear that the argument was made by a pack of dishonest harpies that were clawing for an excuse they could to avoid having the case before the court. Anyone with a brain knows that their position would only last as long as convenient and they would find some case "too important" not to hear regardless of how much attention it had been given.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

After looking at that case, it's quite clear that the argument was made by a pack of dishonest harpies that were clawing for an excuse they could to avoid having the case before the court.

That'd be Justices Jackson and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan also dissented, but did not provide the reasoning.

 

[King George III]

if they're willing to take up a gun case (huge taboo) then I don't think our odds are that bad.

They're probably taking up this case (and hopefully others), because the lower courts have been completely ignoring DC v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, relatively recent cases. Had SCOTUS made an IP related decision recently that lower courts were ignoring, the odds of Josh's cert being granted would be much, much higher.

 

[WelperHelper99]

They're probably taking up this case (and hopefully others), because the lower courts have been completely ignoring DC v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, relatively recent cases. Had SCOTUS made an IP related decision recently that lower courts were ignoring, the odds of Josh's cert being granted would be much, much higher.

Honestly this. Copyright law has been static for a long time, unlike guns, which as of late have been very tumultuous.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

@Napoleon III you REALLY need to learn to quit while you're behind instead of continually making a horse's ass of yourself.

It’s okay. The mods are here to protect you from reading posts you don’t like, even though no one is forcing you to read them.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I will be forever disappointed if Clarence Thomas doesn't make one of his rare appearances in oral arguments to ask Matthew Hardin to explain "What exactly is this sneed thing?"

And if he doesn't respond with "it's a subtle joke your honor...." automatically disbarred.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Utah

 

[Pascal's Wagie]

Utah
View attachment 5931630

Fucking finally.

 

[AnOminous]

Even reaching somebody who has a connection to a clerk might be useful.

It would be incredibly improper to attempt to contact the court through backchannels and possibly even illegal. They would be obliged to inform the opposing party of any improper ex parte communications.

It's difficult to disagree with Gorsuch's reasoning there. If you show either preference or disfavor based on media attention it allows forces outside of the court to control its behavior.

Great idea. Just have a lower court make a ruling spitting in the eye of established SCOTUS case law, then have your fake news buddies write some fake news about it so SCOTUS won't hear it.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Imagine how sick of Russ this judge must be

By all indications, he transferred the case to get rid of it, only for Russ to keep making filings, and probably thought "Eh, it's Florida's problem now, so I don't have to respond." and then Hardin also jumps back in and says "Actually, Florida wants you to respond to it too, because even from Florida Russell is annoying!" so the judge had to respond to a transferred case just to say, AGAIN, "Yes, this case is super ultra mega transferred no tacksies backsies I DON'T WANT IT YOU CAN HAVE IT!"

 

[Tenshi Eating A Corn Dog!]

Utah
View attachment 5931641
View attachment 5931630

It's so ordered, Greerbros....

 

[Bogliacci]

Come on russ 1 more filing, 1 more chance to explain, they're just testing your resolve you've almost won, just 1 more

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Nah, the COURT says it doesn't have jurisdiction, so it can't rule that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the motions! Checkmate, lawyers! You just got GREERED.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Come on russ 1 more filing, 1 more chance to explain, they're just testing your resolve you've almost won, just 1 more

Imagine if Russ responds in Utah AGAIN, and Florida says, AGAIN "Our hands are tied until Utah responds to THAT"

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Nah, the COURT says it doesn't have jurisdiction, so it can't rule that it doesn't have jurisdiction to rule on the motions! Checkmate, lawyers! You just got GREERED.

I mean, technically speaking the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue this order (that I just posted) as he himself concedes.

 

[geckogoy]

Well this is good news, I think given that we live in retard dimension, it was for sure in question what was going to happen with the transfer.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

That'd be Justices Jackson and Sotomayor. Justice Kagan also dissented, but did not provide the reasoning.

It demonstrates the intellectual facileness of left wing jurisprudence. A good judge wouldn't base a grant or denial of cert (or any other petition) on media attention, they would instead solely use something like Article III standing doctrine to argue that they shouldn't even be hearing the case in the first place so a grant would be improvident and an overreach of the judicial power that breaches separation of powers. Good justices at least try to look competent when they're engaging in political conduct.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

"Dear Florida,

do your job.

Love,
Utah."

 

[Useful_Mistake]

"Dear Florida,

do your job.

Love,
Utah."

Ironically, the Magistrate didn’t do his job correctly, and uploaded the same document twice. They are even titled identically.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Imagine if Russ responds in Utah AGAIN, and Florida says, AGAIN "Our hands are tied until Utah responds to THAT"

This pretty much slams the door on that and closes the docket. Utah just issued a "Writ of No Backsies!" Greer can send whatever he wants to Utah, but the big games in Florida now.

I still find it interesting that the Florida Judge put the onus specifically on Hardin to inform the court if or when Utah stopped fucking around. It gives me some small faint hope that the Florida Magistrate has already spotted the presence of a pro se idiot plaintiff.