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

[Maude Snew]

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

6

 

[Mr. Manchester]

The sad thing about Greer is that we can't see his reactions to getting felted in court. His seething has to be particularly hilarious.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

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

Russ should point out that the docket record shows it being closed twice (March 21st, 2024 and April 23rd, 2024) with no reopenings in between, therefore using basic math (minus + minus = +) the case is now reopened and its all back to Utah again.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

This is fucking with me, so I looked up the issue in Wright & Miller to see what's going on. This is from section 3846 "Effect of Transfer":

When a motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) is granted and the papers are lodged with the clerk of the transferee court, the transferor court and the appellate court for the circuit in which that court sits lose jurisdiction over the case and may not proceed further with regard to it. Indeed, some courts have held that jurisdiction vests in the transferee court upon receipt of a certified copy of the order of transfer, even though that court has not received the transfer papers from the transferor court.

From the order:

This court lost jurisdiction to review such motions when the Northern District of Florida received this case file. “Once the files in a case are transferred physically to the court in the transferee district, the transferor court loses all jurisdiction over the case, including the power to review the transfer.”

Called it. Glad to see at least the law clerk in Utah can do 5 minutes of research like I did, though maybe finding the persuasive authority from the Second Circuit took another 5 minutes.

 

[LOWERCASE LETTERS]

Hopefully Null can get awarded attorneys fees. Unlike the usual retards that sue us, Russ actually has assets.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Looking forward to the forthcoming Motion to Reconsider to be filed in Utah.

 

[Pill Cosby]

Utah
View attachment 5931641
View attachment 5931630

We really need a Sneed sticker.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Looking forward to the forthcoming Motion to Reconsider to be filed in Utah.

Don't wish such evil upon us. Please.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Looking forward to the forthcoming Motion to Reconsider to be filed in Utah.

I have little doubt that he will keep trying to tie things up like this. Probably will try his writ of mandamus approach. Russ wants to "be in a lawsuit with" people (and websites), not actually resolve the underlying issue.

 

[LOWERCASE LETTERS]

Yet another reason to hope that Hardin's motion to revoke his poor person filing status works.

The real gold will be if the court in Florida orders him to appear in person.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

He should argue that the admittance of Florida into the USA in 1845 was incorrectly done, so the transfer from a territory to a territory is invalid, and so it must remain in Utah.

 

[trash cat]

Utah
View attachment 5931641
View attachment 5931630

This pile of garbage is not mine.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

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

I prefer to see that as the Court saying, "I really mean it, fuckface, stop bothering me."

But in truth, I don't think it's an error. 108 is the denial of the motion as moot, and 109 is the support for the note that records have been transferred and the case in Utah is (already) closed.

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

It's not improper to deny a motion as moot when the Court has lost jurisdiction. That's standard - the only option afaik - and how a filed motion is closed out in that scenario.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/modern-mootness-doctrine-general-criteria-of-mootness

https://uslawessentials.com/deny-motion-moot/

 

[Thomas Talus]

Yet another reason to hope that Hardin's motion to revoke his poor person filing status works.

Isn't that Acerthorn, not Greer?

 

[DavidS877]

Ok Florida:

 

[Dr. Henry Armitage]

Ten bucks says russes next filing in this case will be in Utah.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

It's not improper to deny a motion as moot when the Court has lost jurisdiction. That's standard - the only option afaik - and how a filed motion is closed out in that scenario.

The way I understand the doctrine of mootness is that it has to do with whether there's an active case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. To say the issue is moot would be saying the court lost jurisdiction because there isn't a live issue between the parties at this point. That's not really what's happening here. Rather, the Utah court is saying that it lost jurisdiction over the case, so it can't rule on the motion to reconsider. That wouldn't be an Article III mootness issue, but a broader lack of jurisdiction issue. The confusion would come from mootness being a jurisdictional doctrine, so to say that something is moot when the court has no jurisdiction over it in the first place would not really make much sense.

But these are really picking at little technicalities that 99% of lawyers don't care about. And half of the 1% that do care are professors in law schools. I don't think it's an error that's serious. It's more likely that the judge/law clerk didn't want to think about this for more than 5 minutes, and giving any consideration at all in a Russell Greer case to the intersection between "loss of jurisdiction due to case transfer" and "lack of jurisdiction due to Article III mootness" would be a waste of time.

 

[Pagan Min]

Isn't that Acerthorn, not Greer?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the wereturkey, not ratface...

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

It gives me some small faint hope that the Florida Magistrate has already spotted the presence of a pro se idiot plaintiff.

I feel fairly confident that when a judge sees the words 'pro se' that the word 'idiot' is automatically appended.

 

[Null]

fyi, the judge appears to have entered this on the 31st day after the transfer ruling. Appeals court has a 30 day window, and Greer threatened to appeal in his spurious motion-to-undo-the-thing-he-let-happen-after-it-already-happened motion. The Judge likely waited so that there's no chance of appeal; the appeals court will simply say he waited too long.