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

[AnOminous]

But "the Beard" had a (fake) grenade in his office and did wargaming as a hobby! A strategic genius! How could we lose the case, weebwars bros?! Sarcasm spoiler

People who are impressed by unintelligible 300 page "briefs" that change fonts in the middle, don't make any sense, and just piss off the judge are idiots. Those recent two or three page filings were what was needed and ALL that was needed when they're just going to let this vexatious asshole get away with it again anyway.

 

[3-2-1836]

Hardin works for basically nothing and has repeatedly had ideas that've saved the site. Are you volunteering?

I'm just curious, what motivates him to defend the site for so little compensation?

 

[Magnificent Penis]

I'm just curious, what motivates him to defend the site for so little compensation?

If I remember correctly, some of the reasons are that Hardin finds it fun and interesting precisely due to the retardation that surrounds Null and his site (and the legal implications of said retardation of course), he is ideologically aligned as far as free speech rights go, and also trannies tried to harass him so maybe a little bit of spite.

 

[Gorton Colu]

I'm just curious, what motivates him to defend the site for so little compensation?

I suspect that he is more interested in helping Joah than the site itself.

 

[Treasure Champs]

Just my two cents — but maybe it’s time to find a lawyer who didn’t go to an unranked law school where the median LSAT is a 146?

How very dare you. Hardin is the chadliest chad lawyer to ever chad. We fucking stan him.

Surely there’s a firm full of T14 grads frothing at the mouth to take on an open-and-shut fair use case against a pro se retard.

Again just my opinion.

None of those elite assholes would piss on us if we were on fire. They'd be much more likely to try to rack up a win against ebil internet boolies.

 

[sallowhal]

It seems to be a recurring problem in this thread. I suggested an Alinsky-like protest, and the niggercattle (who I'm not tagging to avoid a slapfight) accused me of wanting to go out and kill people when I wrote the exact opposite. Dude, LawThreads attract smart, logical people, but they also attract some of the biggest retards of the site.

i said my gut told me this case was gonna be a loss (which null replied to and said would be the funniest option) and probably the same person you're speaking of said they hope i get raped for it. some legalkiwis are better than others

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I'm just curious, what motivates him to defend the site for so little compensation?

As far as I understand, the little compensation is that Harden charges a fair amount and doesn’t make up hours and hours of fake bullshit work to do. He just files the motion that is needed.

 

[Null]

i said my gut told me this case was gonna be a loss (which null replied to and said would be the funniest option) and probably the same person you're speaking of said they hope i get raped for it. some legalkiwis are better than others

It is very funny the entire country is a worse place for fair use now

 

[Your Starter for 10]

It is very funny the entire country is a worse place for fair use now

The country, hell, the world, is a worse place for EVERYTHING now. Which is why your only goal should be to make retards suffer, as that's the only wholesome pastime and true form of entertainment left.

 

[YouTube Autist]

Nothing did, because it never happened.

In the Fox News footage of the case, the Ace Paralegal has a pile of crap on the table, but no laptop or HDMI cable in sight. The video display has no shelf a foot below. Skordas is not striking a poser's pose or skipping excitedly, and the judge never once says "Whoops, sorry, Charlie".

View attachment 5993470

Russell got to state his case, and it was bullshit, so he lost.

Okay, but do we know for a fact whether Russ somersaulted into a Radio Shack and yelled "You have arrived at your destination!" like a GPS?

 

[Kosher Salt]

I wanted to ask how much trouble is being "homeless" causing Greer in terms of reading and replying to filings in this lawsuit?

I would think it wouldn't be that much but I'm uncertain.

Considering that this court's policy on allowing vexatious retards to access its e-filing system is "here's the clerk's email address", I'd say none whatsoever. It literally ruled on the e-filing question as "wtf, this is moot, we already ruled on this". ECF 135.

We're gonna see whatever Russ manages to put together, posted from his iPhone. And the clerk sends him an email every time something is filed, so he doesn't have an excuse for missing it because the USPS doesn't deliver to his street corner.

 

[Null]

so he doesn't have an excuse for missing it because the USPS doesn't deliver to his street corner.

USPS will attempt general delivery to vagabonds living under a bridge.

hashtag post office patriots
hashtag only good federal government agency

 

[Kosher Salt]

USPS will attempt general delivery to vagabonds living under a bridge.

hashtag post office patriots
hashtag only good federal government agency

Fair, but only if the sender has some semblance of an address for it, which Greer seems particularly reluctant to provide.

"Find the retard in Vegas who looks like he took a shovel to the face" probably isn't going to get delivered.

hashtag snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom but maybe they draw the line at drool

 

[Absolutego]

USPS will attempt general delivery to vagabonds living under a bridge.

hashtag post office patriots
hashtag only good federal government agency

hashtag Congress is trying to kill it with asinine pension rules because UPS and FedEx keep donating to them

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

megamind code this hashtag shit is getting out of hand

 

[Hungry Fox]

I'm just curious, what motivates him to defend the site for so little compensation?

If I remember correctly

also IIRC during #dropkiwifarms hardin caught some faggot journoscum digging through his trash to intimidate him into dropping jewsh as a client, and that kind of totalitarian bullshit pissed him off royally.

 

[Star Platinum]

The reading seems to be that 'excusable neglect' is the standard, but the court has to have 'good cause' to make the extension based on the first. It seems to be a 2-step test.

Not that the judge paid any mind...

TL;DR: law autism.

they're both just prerequisites to an extension. the rule says you have to have good cause and the neglect must be excusable. that's also why the order refers to both. in theory (though almost never in practice), you can have good cause without excusable neglect, or vice versa. the supreme court case that @Useful_Mistake cited was analyzing the excusable neglect standard, and didn't address good cause (because good cause wasn't the appealed issue). i doubt you're going to find a (reported and unreversed) lower court opinion that says "good cause isn't necessary for an extension under Rule 6(b)" because it's right there in the text of the rule. (if anyone here shills out to Thomson Reuters and has zero hobbies, feel free to check Wright & Miller, I think it's § 1165. they cite some lower court cases that analyze good cause itself).

the difference is largely academic, because lower courts will usually shortcut the analysis by analyzing excusable neglect, and then saying "well there is good cause to extend here because the neglect was excusable!" (ignoring the interpretive canon against surplusage). for example, the Fifth Circuit has described good cause as requiring "at least" excusable neglect. the only reason i pointed out that Hardin was mistaken is that a flat statement like that in a motion ("the standard is not X, it's Y!" when it's actually "X + Y") gets you nowhere substantively and just weakens your credibility with the court.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

the rule says you have to have good cause and the neglect must be excusable.

The rule does not say that. The rule (and all the cases interpreting it) describes two different standards. One for pre-deadline extensions, and one for post-deadline extensions.

Utah courts tend to routinely agree with your view, but the appellate courts seem to routinely disagree. See Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2005) (untimely motions to be considered under excusable neglect standard), Livingston v. Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth., No. 20-3075 (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2021) ("By the time she requested the extension, her deadline had already expired. So she needed to show excusable neglect."), Lopez v. Cantex Health Care Ctrs. II, No. 23-2044 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) to be considered under excusable neglect standard), Hamilton v. Water Whole Intern. Corp., 302 F. App'x 789 (10th Cir. 2008) (same), Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) ("Because the motion was timely, he needed only to show good cause for the extension request.), Babakr v. Fowles, No. 23-3026 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024) ("Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B), a district court has discretion to accept a party's late filing if the party files a motion showing that the delay was the result of "excusable neglect.", "under Rule 6(b), a post-deadline extension . . . is permissible only where the failure to meet the deadline was the result of excusable neglect"

Ignoring linguism, consider this? What point is there to have good cause and excusable neglect for post-deadline motion, when one of them is much stricter than the other? Even if your linguistic view is accurate, that still doesn't change the fact that one of the standards would be a non-factor. If memory serves, courts routinely frown on such interpretations.

To the extent you imply that both standards would also apply to pre-deadline extensions, that is completely and totally incorrect.

 

[mindlessobserver]

What's frustrating to me is that Greer neither argued for Excusable Neglect, OR for Good Cause Showing. He just bitched and whined and the Judge apropos nothing decided that what Greer was trying to use excusable neglect for not meeting his legal requirements. Here is hoping Greer blows off another deadline. I can't wait to see this Judge do a flip trying to justify it.

 

[Null]

What's frustrating to me is that Greer neither argued for Excusable Neglect, OR for Good Cause Showing. He just bitched and whined and the Judge apropos nothing decided that what Greer actually trying to say was that he had excusable neglect for not meeting his deadline.

dude that is every filing. He could mail in a piece of notebook paper he used to wipe his ass and the judge would find his true meaning between the lines.