- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
I think the Judge is going to read Greer the riot act. Then he will still hand wave away the bullshit and further prejudice null.
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2023
If this doesn't fuck it up, he might as well drool all over the place and put it in a motion.
He fucked up royally. I can't wait to see him defending his case just before Christmas.
He fucked up royally. I can't wait to see him defending his case just before Christmas.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
Why did 6 file a restraining order against 7?
Because
Because
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2023
Because of my plights!
By the way, I want to start a whorehouse, so I can get fucked and sucked.
Judge? A little help?
By the way, I want to start a whorehouse, so I can get fucked and sucked.
Judge? A little help?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
Go talk to Chuck.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Honestly, if this is not immediately sanctioned @Null has grounds to go full scorched earth. Challenge the applicability of the courts mandates of the rules under the civil rights act. There is only so far a defendant of a federal civil procedure can be pushed before this strays into the deprivation of rights territory making the plaintiff in his personal capacity and the judge/magistrate in their personal capacity liable for damages under Chaper 13, Title 18 of the United States Code.
Yeah, its definitely scorched earth and Hail Mary. But if after all the games Greer has played ALL YEAR in the case HE HAS BROUGHT, the Federal Court decides to entertain him without notices, this is in play. And honestly after all this Greer is not sanctioned the fix is already in and Null may as well raise the nuclear option.
Yeah, its definitely scorched earth and Hail Mary. But if after all the games Greer has played ALL YEAR in the case HE HAS BROUGHT, the Federal Court decides to entertain him without notices, this is in play. And honestly after all this Greer is not sanctioned the fix is already in and Null may as well raise the nuclear option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
This mess has already run its way up to SCOTUS and back. Quoting the WaPo as legal opinion too. There sadly is no scorched earth nuclear option for people like Null. This is why the public trust and opinion of the courts is the lowest it has been in US history.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Allow me my seethe.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
I'm of two minds on this.
One, it's funny as hell.
Two, it's Null's lawsuit money he could be spending on going after actual Problems on the Internet.
Hopefully this is swiftly concluded(heh) and Greer can find another target we can laugh at.
One, it's funny as hell.
Two, it's Null's lawsuit money he could be spending on going after actual Problems on the Internet.
Hopefully this is swiftly concluded(heh) and Greer can find another target we can laugh at.
Magnificent Penis
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2024
To the law and law-adjacent people in the thread: let's give Russ the benefit of the doubt and accept that naming his dad and brother as witnesses is fine with the court even though all he did was give names and a phone number which is obviously insufficient. If and when this goes to discovery, how credible would their testimony even be? I feel like if I was in trouble and I said "my mom can attest to what a good boy I am and how the school jocks are all very mean" wouldn't hold a lot of water in grown up court but I don't really know for sure.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
I think this case more than any other has taken a hefty mental toll on Russell.
Russell has said that if he loses this case he's going to stop going to the law for what he wants (ominous) and in a way, he's right. It's been noted Russell uses the courts as a way to feel important and smart. The Judge and opposition have to take him seriously because it's a court room, he gets to flex all his paralegal degree knowledge to show how close to a real lawyer he is, and he gets to come wearing his snappy suit he thinks makes him look so fancy and sophisticated (notice he recently withdrew his hooker lawsuit when his suit was stolen and he couldn't play dress up anymore).
It's also a way of him forcing people to notice him. He sued a hooker, then worked his way up to Farah Abraham, then Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, before curbing his expectations enough to sue a gameshow (America's Got Talent), another hooker, harassing Erika, and now a website. It irritates me that he says Null never expected a poor disabled person to take him to court because it's the opposite, he saw a fringe website hated by all the mainstream, and thought he had finally found a target small enough for his lawsuits to hurt, until Null lawyered up and showed he's well oiled and ready for the long run. What's below suing a message board?
In this lawsuit, he not only got handed another loss, and this time from what he probably thought his smallest target yet, but when his fantasy came true and DJF represented him pro bono, their argument was that his claim wasn't "skillfully plead" and they said he had "physical and mental disabilities" and Russell had to swallow it, and it got him his first win in law ever, reopening on appeal, not because of anything Russ did, and predicated on the argument that he's literally retarded and doesn't know how to law. Then they abandoned him.
Russell began whining to the court he needed an extension to raise funds to rehire his lawyers, because deep down he knows he only won the appeal because of them. The man who once proudly boasted he doesn't need a lawyer because he's just as good, told the court it's as if he's just an ordinary Joe and Hardin's a professional boxer beating the shit out of him, the most honest thing Russell has ever said. Even if he thinks it was just a lie to get the extension, he must at least subconsciously know it's true if he has to make the excuse to get his lolyers back, and there's a reason the analogy came to him.
After that his strategy was to deny his self proclaimed paralegal expertise, saying "this is all French to me" and pleading "I'm too stupid to know the law! I don't know the first thing about law! I'm stupid stupid stupid!" because that was the only thing that's ever gotten him any win.
He used to brag about everyone and everything he was suing because, as noted, he wants to be "in a lawsuit with" someone to seem relevant, just like he always wants to be writing a song or book he puts off forever. But not the kiwifarms and hooker suit, nor eviction were given regular updates on facebook. Kiwifarms gets a few mentions here or there, one of which he posted after his Appeals victory was immediately deleted upon realizing he hadn't actually won the whole case. I don't think he shuts up about cases now just because he knows his words can be used against him like in the Ariana Grande trial, I think he knows if he does he'll have to eat crow when he loses again.
Now, even the appellate victory turns bitter in his mouth as he can't even get the $225 he believes he is owed, and is being threatened with having to pay Null.
I don't think Russ gains any satisfaction from a case against what he considered a week opponent who in his own words is like a pro boxer beating the shit out of him, where he doesn't get to play dress up, can't flex his paralegal degree, has to keep shouting "I'm dumb! I'm dumb! I'm dumb!" can't even post about it, has to meet deadlines, and might have to pay the opposition's legal fees AGAIN. He's taken blow after blow to his ego and for all his narcissistic injuries, he has nothing to show for it and doesn't even enjoy doing it.
And many have said this case is the dog catching the car and not knowing what to do with it. This is the furthest Russ has ever gotten and he hates it! And now knows this is what he has to expect if he ever got this far with a celebrity or hooker.
If Russ loses, he just might actually quit law.
Russell has said that if he loses this case he's going to stop going to the law for what he wants (ominous) and in a way, he's right. It's been noted Russell uses the courts as a way to feel important and smart. The Judge and opposition have to take him seriously because it's a court room, he gets to flex all his paralegal degree knowledge to show how close to a real lawyer he is, and he gets to come wearing his snappy suit he thinks makes him look so fancy and sophisticated (notice he recently withdrew his hooker lawsuit when his suit was stolen and he couldn't play dress up anymore).
It's also a way of him forcing people to notice him. He sued a hooker, then worked his way up to Farah Abraham, then Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande, before curbing his expectations enough to sue a gameshow (America's Got Talent), another hooker, harassing Erika, and now a website. It irritates me that he says Null never expected a poor disabled person to take him to court because it's the opposite, he saw a fringe website hated by all the mainstream, and thought he had finally found a target small enough for his lawsuits to hurt, until Null lawyered up and showed he's well oiled and ready for the long run. What's below suing a message board?
In this lawsuit, he not only got handed another loss, and this time from what he probably thought his smallest target yet, but when his fantasy came true and DJF represented him pro bono, their argument was that his claim wasn't "skillfully plead" and they said he had "physical and mental disabilities" and Russell had to swallow it, and it got him his first win in law ever, reopening on appeal, not because of anything Russ did, and predicated on the argument that he's literally retarded and doesn't know how to law. Then they abandoned him.
Russell began whining to the court he needed an extension to raise funds to rehire his lawyers, because deep down he knows he only won the appeal because of them. The man who once proudly boasted he doesn't need a lawyer because he's just as good, told the court it's as if he's just an ordinary Joe and Hardin's a professional boxer beating the shit out of him, the most honest thing Russell has ever said. Even if he thinks it was just a lie to get the extension, he must at least subconsciously know it's true if he has to make the excuse to get his lolyers back, and there's a reason the analogy came to him.
After that his strategy was to deny his self proclaimed paralegal expertise, saying "this is all French to me" and pleading "I'm too stupid to know the law! I don't know the first thing about law! I'm stupid stupid stupid!" because that was the only thing that's ever gotten him any win.
He used to brag about everyone and everything he was suing because, as noted, he wants to be "in a lawsuit with" someone to seem relevant, just like he always wants to be writing a song or book he puts off forever. But not the kiwifarms and hooker suit, nor eviction were given regular updates on facebook. Kiwifarms gets a few mentions here or there, one of which he posted after his Appeals victory was immediately deleted upon realizing he hadn't actually won the whole case. I don't think he shuts up about cases now just because he knows his words can be used against him like in the Ariana Grande trial, I think he knows if he does he'll have to eat crow when he loses again.
Now, even the appellate victory turns bitter in his mouth as he can't even get the $225 he believes he is owed, and is being threatened with having to pay Null.
I don't think Russ gains any satisfaction from a case against what he considered a week opponent who in his own words is like a pro boxer beating the shit out of him, where he doesn't get to play dress up, can't flex his paralegal degree, has to keep shouting "I'm dumb! I'm dumb! I'm dumb!" can't even post about it, has to meet deadlines, and might have to pay the opposition's legal fees AGAIN. He's taken blow after blow to his ego and for all his narcissistic injuries, he has nothing to show for it and doesn't even enjoy doing it.
And many have said this case is the dog catching the car and not knowing what to do with it. This is the furthest Russ has ever gotten and he hates it! And now knows this is what he has to expect if he ever got this far with a celebrity or hooker.
If Russ loses, he just might actually quit law.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
Generally, Mormons aren't going to want to lie under oath like that. Plus they have to answer the questions that are asked.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
My theory, for what it's worth, is that he anticipated they would tell the court how much that forum hurt his feelings for the other torts that were dismissed. From all of his actions, Greer has never formally acknowledged they were dismissed, in kind of the same way Taiwan maintains claims over mainland China. So he's named them as witnesses for a purpose no longer needed for reasons which I'm not sure make sense even to him, just that he always intended to.
Magnificent Penis
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2024
You are probably right. However if memory doesn't fail me Greer actually DID admit in a filing that he is in fact trying to revive the dismissed issues after Hardin pointed it out. So he does in fact understand that they were dismissed and he is not supposed to attempt to re-litigate it, and it's on record. He just stubbornly refuses to accept it (you may call it "recalcitrant" if you want). Problem is the court didn't explicitly tell him to knock it off and just chose to ignore it and focus on trying to get the procedural aspects going instead. Which I suppose is as good a result as you can hope for in this case.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
I mean, is there really a difference between defamation and contributory copyright infringement, when the defamation contained in the commentary regarding the copyrighted work is the only thing stopping the copyright holder from becoming a multi-multimillionaire off of his art?
Making strict distinctions between causes of action really is just abusing the disabled.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
He's put a fig leaf in front of it by claiming that they're somehow going to show damages. That also makes little sense given the statutory nature of the copyright claims but I'm torn behind him purposely trying to subvert the process by prejudicing the court with irrelevant testimony (something he tries to do all the time) or just him not having any clue what's going on (also his MO).
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2023
That was his excuse when he started decompensating. In my headcannon, that place where you can store luggage kept it when he didn't pay. Now imagine being in one of those shows where you buy unclaimed lost luggage, contents unseen...
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2024
From some court proceedings I've seen, the credibility of the family member tends to rely on both their own standing in the community (eg. are they themselves a good, trustworthy person) and the depth of their knowledge. Obviously it's better your mother the law-abiding nurse speaks for you, than drugged out trailer trash who was in court last Friday. But if they don't know anything other than "he was sad and someone (I dont know who) was mean", then that doesn't hold much weight either.
And again, this all has nothing to do with proving copyright law.
The reason I suspect he is ommiting in disclosure what his witnesses know, is because they don't know anything about any issues with copyright. He's hoping the court as usual just let's it slide. They're there so Greer can (as Hardin put it) ambush Null in court with "muh feelings and plights" to sway the court. As is his modus operandi so far.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
So are we taking bets as to whether or not Greer is going to blow off the judges order to show cause now that he's failed his assignment with Hardin?
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Nothing. The only thing they could testify to are for causes of actions already dismissed (defamation, electronic harassment). They can't testify to his financials from selling his works because they don't have personal knowledge. They can't testify to the damage caused for similar reasons. They can't testify regarding the infringement because they lack personal and useful knowledge. If Russ was the defendant, they could testify to his character (which would matter here), but he is not the defendant.
In Russ' own words, he needs witnesses to show that someone saw that his work was posted on KF, and that KF was mean (I contest the relevance and applicability of either and both)
He did yes:
The magistrate judge decided that this was okay when Mr. Hardin asked it to be striked:
If the judge doesn't moot that order before the deadline, I think Russ will respond