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

[Useful_Mistake]

Probably will try his writ of mandamus approach

It’s a good thing that the 10th already said that this shit won’t work

Regarding mandamus: "The possibility of an appeal from the final judgment in the transferee circuit, even with the difficult burden of demonstrating prejudice there, will preclude relief by writ [of mandamus]." The only exception to this the 10th circuit found was if you for some reason can't appeal a final judgement in the transferee court, or when such appeal could not "correct extraordinary hardship because of the particular circumstances." - In re Dalton, 733 F.2d 710 (10th Cir. 1984)

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.

They are identical documents. 109 didn’t need a document to begin with. It’s not important, but funny still.

 

[teriyakiburns]

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.

Res explicanda. The court ain't listening no more.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

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.

Rule 60 relief from judgement/order motion tolls the timer for appeal. He still has time. See United States v. Zook, No. 22-1060 (10th Cir. Dec. 6, 2022) (“Likewise, to toll the appeal period, a Rule 60 motion must be filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered.”). He filed his Rule 60 motion less than a day after the venue transfer order.

He also filed a Rule 59 motion which similarly tolls the timer. See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (A) (4) (A) (iv)

 

[Your Starter for 10]

This case is about Null, not about moot. Get it straight, law nerds.

 

[Google.com]

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

Almost every retarded lawsuit is pro-se but not every pro-se lawsuit is retarded. Gideon v. Wainwright for example even if thats an old one, but there's been more recent very successful pro-se lawsuits.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

This case is about Null, not about moot. Get it straight, law nerds.

True, it should have said "the motion is MOOT, and the ORDER TO REOPEN is NULL and VOID" and then we'd be left trying to figure out who the heck @void is and how he's involved.

 

[ScooterL]

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

Yeah, but that will be totally cancelled out when Russell writes them a gift song to flatter them.

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

I think he'd see filing anything in Florida as a personal humiliation. He might ghost the court again.

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 court must really, really want to get rid of this retarded case.

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

True, it should have said "the motion is MOOT, and the ORDER TO REOPEN is NULL and VOID" and then we'd be left trying to figure out who the heck @void is and how he's involved.

Void is Null's evil twin. He's tge exact opposite of Null. Hates banana peppers, loves skinny girls, troons, and the British.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Florida:

Mr. Hardin appears to have confused todays date with the date of the transfer (23rd of April v. March 21st)

Actually, rereading this, I think it is just worded weirdly. My bad.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Florida:
View attachment 5931794

No "a website"? RUINED

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Actually, rereading this, I think it is just worded weirdly. My bad.

Yeah that's a badly worded comma clause, but I think it might be the "normal way" lawyers speak or some shit. The date modifies "entered an ORDER".



MISSING ZIP CODE!!!! NULL TO BE DETAINED BY THE USPS POLICE!

No "a website"? RUINED

the court did it right, just the summary is summarizing; though I don't know if JOSHUA POTTER NULL CONNER MOON is the publisher, or the owner of the LLC that is the publisher, but whatever.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

the court did it right, just the summary is summarizing; though I don't know if JOSHUA POTTER NULL CONNER MOON is the publisher, or the owner of the LLC that is the publisher, but whatever.

That’s from the Utah order Mr. Hardin attached. His version simply had it as “RUSSELL GREER, v. JOSHUA MOON, et al.”

 

[AnOminous]

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

There's generally an exception where a court without jurisdiction has jurisdiction to do nothing other than acknowledge its lack of jurisdiction. They really should have denied all pending motions as moot when transferring, though.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

There's generally an exception where a court without jurisdiction has jurisdiction to do nothing other than acknowledge its lack of jurisdiction. They really should have denied all pending motions as moot when transferring, though.

Yes, but isn’t when considering standing, as opposed to something like this? It seems outlandish to suggest that after the court has purposely availed themselves of jurisdiction (but there’s still Article III standing for the case/facts itself/themselves) that it could somehow then make any sorts of orders.

 

[AnOminous]

Yes, but isn’t when considering standing, as opposed to something like this? It seems outlandish to suggest that after the court has purposely availed themselves of jurisdiction (but there’s still Article III standing for the case/facts itself/themselves) that it could somehow then make any sorts of orders.

Well, if it were unable to clarify the actual situation, the case would be trapped in limbo forever, a manifestly absurd result.

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

I'm pretty sure that motion is in the Mr. Stabby case, not this.

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.

It would have been considerably preferable to deny these motions explicitly when transferring the case, as it almost invited nonsense like this.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Well, if it were unable to clarify the actual situation, the case would be trapped in limbo forever, a manifestly absurd result.

That is true.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Let's be honest. At this point, ANY result of this case is manifestly absurd.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

At this point, ANY result of this case is manifestly absurd.

Null winning might not be. Though, if he wins like he did the 4th Circuit Melinda case, then it will be manifestly absurd.

 

[Captain Manning]

Almost every retarded lawsuit is pro-se but not every pro-se lawsuit is retarded. Gideon v. Wainwright for example even if thats an old one, but there's been more recent very successful pro-se lawsuits.

Yeah, but Gideon v Wainwright was a criminal case that stood for the proposition that criminal defendants should never have to represent themselves in court. Previously to that, the Sixth Amendment was interpreted to mean a criminal defendant may employ a lawyer. Gideon appealed his conviction on the basis that he thought the Sixth Amendment entitled him to representation, and the SCOTUS agreed (he also won at retrial, with the assistance of a public defender).

I sometimes think the SCOTUS was working to preserve the sanity of their lower court brethren as much as they were trying to to help Gideon. You can't very well refuse to try criminal defendants because they are indigent, and you don't want every criminal case to be a circus like Darnell Brooks.

No such luck in the majority of civil cases, I'm afraid.

Gideon was also a smart man who understood the value of an attorney, and that he had no idea what he was doing without one. Acerthorn and Greer are not.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

His version simply had it as “RUSSELL GREER, v. JOSHUA MOON, et al.”

Et al is usually OK, but in the case of KIWIFARMS, a website, I could see skipping it because "et al" could easily be confused with the "eat all" - the Deathfats board.

I guess that's the next step - for someone to sue an actual thread on the farms, instead of the farms.