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

[AnOminous]

I wonder how they broke the news to the judge. What does that conversation even look like. "Hey judge, guess what!"

If I were this judge, I would be absolutely furious that some retarded bulldyke in Florida was ordering me to do something, like this cunt is somehow an appeals court judge who gets to order other courts what to do.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

I think I've got it! Null's "not that retarded" filing will be paying for Russell's lawyer!

People have said it would be cheaper for Null to just pay for Russell to have a lawyer because then the scheduling conference would finally be held and Russ would have no more tard shield. Russ has basically asked for the same when he whined about the litigation fund "Over 100,000 dollars raised with plaintiff's likeness and he hasn't seen a dime of it!"

Null could say "In the interest of resolving this case in a timely manner, I concede Mr. Greer's point about his likeness being used in the litigation crowdfund and offer for the same source to fund his lawyer in this case, just so it will actually proceed and plaintiff can no longer constantly cudgel us with his ignorance of the legal system! This case would've been dismissed (again) long ago if plaintiff were held to the standards of an actual lawyer, like having to do a scheduling conference or provide a valid address to be served at, or actually give correct dates on certificates of service!"

The court would never grant it for all sorts of reasons, conflict of interests, Hardin's IOLTA probably can't be redirected to any other lawyer, etc, but it would be funny, it would hammer in to the court how much this has unreasonably cost Null, how much leeway Russ has been given, how much this case needs to proceed, and when the Judge denies it, it would be funny to see Russ file "Fuck you Judge! I want that kiwi money!"

 

[FrancineCansMcGee]

Yes but he has to hire either Nick Rekieta or Ty Beard.

 

[filthypenguin]

What is the Florida court expecting the Utah court to do, exactly? The way it reads, it seems like Florida wants Utah to consider the stuff Greer filed in opposition to the initial transfer, and then either keep the case or re-transfer it. If I'm the Florida judge, I'm assuming that transferring it back to Utah will not make Utah happy, since it's barely legal to begin with and they have been forced to look at it again once already. I would expect Utah to either dismiss it immediately since Greer is so very far past all his deadlines, or to transfer it right back with better reasoning against Greer's objections than "too late, retard." If that's the case, it seems like Florida may have wanted to dismiss the case, but they want to prevent Greer from appealing over the transfer. Or, they'd rather it get dismissed again in Utah so that the same appeals court looks at it and they avoid having a circuit split on the same case?
I'm just struggling to figure out the motive behind sending it back if it's not that they truely believe Utah made a mistake. I'd think if they were just trying to make it go away they'd just dismiss it for failure to prosecute (maybe even without prejudice so that Greer could just refile it somewhere else), and if they wanted to give Greer what he wanted they would have sent it to Nevada.

 

[Terrifik]

What is the Florida court expecting the Utah court to do, exactly? The way it reads, it seems like Florida wants Utah to consider the stuff Greer filed in opposition to the initial transfer, and then either keep the case or re-transfer it. If I'm the Florida judge, I'm assuming that transferring it back to Utah will not make Utah happy, since it's barely legal to begin with and they have been forced to look at it again once already. I would expect Utah to either dismiss it immediately since Greer is so very far past all his deadlines, or to transfer it right back with better reasoning against Greer's objections than "too late, retard." If that's the case, it seems like Florida may have wanted to dismiss the case, but they want to prevent Greer from appealing over the transfer. Or, they'd rather it get dismissed again in Utah so that the same appeals court looks at it and they avoid having a circuit split on the same case?
I'm just struggling to figure out the motive behind sending it back if it's not that they truely believe Utah made a mistake. I'd think if they were just trying to make it go away they'd just dismiss it for failure to prosecute (maybe even without prejudice so that Greer could just refile it somewhere else), and if they wanted to give Greer what he wanted they would have sent it to Nevada.

the mistake is on Greer- Greer got a free mulligan

1. fucking off for weeks -Hardan tries to tard wrangle with the court keep the ball rolling
2. forgetting their specific timeline - due date or consequences happen (court waited an extra 15 -30 days for appeal on decision, finalize it)
   1. The question is can the due date time & appeal of decision time be mixed due to asking for more time?
3. **accredited practicing lawyer***(diploma),
4. Strain the meaning of deadline & due dates with health claims, COVID, sick, Aliens
5. I have no money -other lawyers won't help or hear my case
6. trying to win issues off of NULL/kiwi farm notoriety & fallout that happens
7. the main plan is to waste null money waiting him out

*The only issue I see Florida having was not allowing Greer to give Utah court appeal L by separating decision & appeal time*

 

[filthypenguin]

The only issue I see Florida having was not allowing Greer to give Utah court appeal L by separating decision & appeal time*

Right, but I guess I'm trying to figure out if that issue is the only reason they kicked the case back.

They're already citing and then ignoring the anti ping pong law, so at this point we can throw any legal reasoning out since laws don't apply anymore. If they just want rid of the case, they could have just dismissed it. If they wanted rid of the case without taking Kiwi Farm's side, they could have given it to Nevada (bonus, they don't have to deal with any appeals, since those would also happen in Nevada).
Giving it to Utah seemingly serves no purpose if the goal is to help Greer: Utah is biased against Greer according to Greer (and if they weren't they probably will be when they Greer claiming they were), they've likely pissed off the Utah judge by overruling him in a decision that isn't even in their jurisdiction, and now that they've decided ping pong is allowed there's no reason Utah can't just give it right back to Florida. If they just wanted to buy Greer time, they could have just sat on it (like they had been).
I'm probably missing something, but as far as I can tell they must really think Utah fucked up and are trying to correct the problem so Greer doesn't have an argument for an appeal. Or, they're expecting Utah to just immediately dismiss the case, and they didn't just do that themselves because they want Greer's appeal to stay in the same state it's already been appealed in to avoid a circuit split (which would also be a good reason to not give it to Nevada).

 

[CEO of Gay]

Making a song for Taylor Swift.

Hardly a fair contest. Null has a much nicer singing voice.

 

[Pandokeon]

For someone living outside of the United States of America, this entire thread is a good case study of how, despite being awarded multiple freedoms not found anywhere else, the judicial system of that country is just as broken and pathological as anywhere in Europe. I'm just sorry for Josh that he has to personally provide such an example, at no small cost.

 

[Staticness]

Hardly a fair contest. Null has a much nicer singing voice.

That's dimensional merge territory, real Joshcore might explode the world.

 

[JustSomeDong]

I think I've got it! Null's "not that retarded" filing will be paying for Russell's lawyer!

People have said it would be cheaper for Null to just pay for Russell to have a lawyer because then the scheduling conference would finally be held and Russ would have no more tard shield. Russ has basically asked for the same when he whined about the litigation fund "Over 100,000 dollars raised with plaintiff's likeness and he hasn't seen a dime of it!"

Null could say "In the interest of resolving this case in a timely manner, I concede Mr. Greer's point about his likeness being used in the litigation crowdfund and offer for the same source to fund his lawyer in this case, just so it will actually proceed and plaintiff can no longer constantly cudgel us with his ignorance of the legal system! This case would've been dismissed (again) long ago if plaintiff were held to the standards of an actual lawyer, like having to do a scheduling conference or provide a valid address to be served at, or actually give correct dates on certificates of service!"

The court would never grant it for all sorts of reasons, conflict of interests, Hardin's IOLTA probably can't be redirected to any other lawyer, etc, but it would be funny, it would hammer in to the court how much this has unreasonably cost Null, how much leeway Russ has been given, how much this case needs to proceed, and when the Judge denies it, it would be funny to see Russ file "Fuck you Judge! I want that kiwi money!"

That's so fucking clownworld that it almost makes perfect sense. What a time to be alive.

That's dimensional merge territory, real Joshcore might explode the world.

Or heal it.

 

[Kosher Salt]

I think I've got it! Null's "not that retarded" filing will be paying for Russell's lawyer!

The main problem with this idea is that it would have to go to any lawyer of Russell's choosing, and we already know which lawyers he wants to hire - and that they probably told him to pay "fuck-you" money because they don't want to deal with the trial court level of his case, they only cared about setting appellate precedent.

He'd be signing up to pay the fees of a couple of lawyers who already wanted to charge an arm and a leg (because they didn't want to deal with this case any longer), but also volunteered to go to appellate court for free (because they fundamentally disagree with copyright fair use). They have every incentive to jack up their price sky-high and then overbill as much as they can get away with.

Precisely this sort of "strings attached" would not be allowed:

Yes but he has to hire either Nick Rekieta or Ty Beard.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

The main problem with this idea is that it would have to go to any lawyer of Russell's choosing, and we already know which lawyers he wants to hire - and that they probably told him to pay "fuck-you" money because they don't want to deal with the trial court level of his case, they only cared about setting appellate precedent.

He'd be signing up to pay the fees of a couple of lawyers who already wanted to charge an arm and a leg (because they didn't want to deal with this case any longer), but also volunteered to go to appellate court for free (because they fundamentally disagree with copyright fair use). They have every incentive to jack up their price sky-high and then overbill as much as they can get away with.

Precisely this sort of "strings attached" would not be allowed:

Null would probably have to say something like "We estimated your caricature is worth 5% of the litigation fund, so here's $5,500 for you to pay a retainer"
Then when Russell runs out of money, he'd just be out of money, and even if he whined for more his claim against the litigation fund would already be settled, the scheduling conference would already have been held and the address corrected

 

[Kosher Salt]

Null would probably have to say something like "We estimated your caricature is worth 5% of the litigation fund, so here's $5,500 for you to pay a retainer"
Then when Russell runs out of money, he'd just be out of money, and even if he whined for more his claim against the litigation fund would already be settled, the scheduling conference would already have held and the address corrected

I don't think it'd be permissible for him to offer just enough money for Russ's lawyers to get their feet wet and then leave Russ on the hook to continue paying them.

He could offer Russ a chunk of cash to settle - drop the lawsuit entirely - but if he's paying legal bills, he'd have to cover the entire legal bill, not just a pre-arranged chunk of it.

 

[Pascal's Wagie]

Florida:
View attachment 6083540

MASON: I know what the perfect jurisdiction is... a Federal District Court... I saw it a long time ago, in the 10th Circuit.
HUDSON: Where?
MASON: Utah.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I don't think it'd be permissible for him to offer just enough money for Russ's lawyers to get their feet wet and then leave Russ on the hook to continue paying them.

I don't think any such deal would be permissible at all, whether or not Null would be paying the totality of bills or only a fraction. Though, of course, if Russ signs a waiver stating that he is aware of the conflict of interest and the impact it might have on his case, and still wishes to accept that representation, it could work. That's my read of Utah R. Prof. Cond. 1.7 and 1.8 anyway

 

[Kosher Salt]

I don't think any such deal would be permissible at all, whether or not Null would be paying the totality of bills or only a fraction. Though, of course, if Russ signs a waiver stating that he is aware of the conflict of interest and the impact it might have on his case, and still wishes to accept that representation, it could work. That's my read of Utah R. Prof. Cond. 1.7 and 1.8 anyway

Yeah, on second thought, I tend to agree. Having the payer be an opposing party just creates too much risk because they would stand to benefit if they got behind on paying the lawyers and detrimentally affected the client's case.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

I know none of this will ever happen, but if Null paid for Russell's lawyer just to get this moving already, and then got awarded legal fees, could he then count the cost of RUSSELL'S lawyer as his own legal fees since he paid for him?

You might say it'd be unreasonable to offer to pay for Russell's lawyer and then charge him for it, but I'd say that'd be perfect for inflicted damages to say "He dragged this out so long we had to PAY FOR HIM to get a lawyer just because it was cheaper than letting him pro se abuse us forever!"

Yeah, on second thought, I tend to agree. Having the payer be an opposing party just creates too much risk because they would stand to benefit if they got behind on paying the lawyers and detrimentally affected the client's case.

That's why I was thinking he'd have to give Russell an exact, fixed amount from the litigation fund, which would only be the value of using a caricature of him (say, 5%, which Russell isn't legally entitled to anyway) and then that exact amount would have to be immediately transferred as a retainer to Russell's lawyer, which wouldn't be the DJF, not because of any condition of Null's, but because Russell's royalties from the litigation fund wouldn't be enough to pay their fuck you price

 

[Useful_Mistake]

but if Null paid for Russell's lawyer just to get this moving already, and then got awarded legal fees, could he then count the cost of RUSSELL'S lawyer as his own legal fees since he paid for him?

No, that'd be absurd. It's a cost Null would have willingly volunteered to incur, as opposed to the costs Russ forced him to incur.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

No, that'd be absurd. It's a cost Null would have willingly volunteered to incur, as opposed to the costs Russ forced him to incur.

The argument would have to be Russell forced Null to incur that cost by being so willfully incompetent he made it CHEAPER to pay for two lawyers at once than paying one lawyer for endless hours of addressing crazy and asking for us to just please have a scheduling conference and proper certificates of service like a real court case for 1000th time!

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The argument would have to be Russell forced Null to incur that cost by being so willfully incompetent he made it CHEAPER to pay for two lawyers at once than paying one lawyer

That argument is absurd. It's an expense he would choose to incur, not one he has to incur. I don't believe this argument would ever prevail unless I see some caselaw in the contrary.