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

[obsdj]

View attachment 6817952 View attachment 6817980

That's confusing because I specifically tested it before making my post and it did show me as the BCC. Here's the example I sent right now from one of my email addresses to a second email address with a BCC to a third email address. It does show me as a BCC recipient while my second email address is the one missing the BCC information. Perhaps this was because I used three Gmail email addresses in this test?

It's showing you the bcc because you are the sender. The recipients would not see the bcc. Greer is (allegedly) the recipient of the emails in question.

 

[Harm]

It's showing you the bcc because you are the sender.

No, I was definitely viewing it on the BCC recipient email address (I know I'm not the most tech savvy person on the boards but I'm not THAT retarded). When I tested a second time using three separate email providers, it no longer appeared.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Man. Greer isn't just turning the court docket into his blog, he's going full Doctor Gene Ray THE ONE TRUE PROPHET OF NATURES HARMONIOUS TIME CUBE on the docket. I am here for it. Sad Null has to pay for the show though.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Russel making his book free on Amazon would matter if he was seeking actual damages, because that would kill any claim for actual damages, but he's claiming statutory damages, so the fact that his book was free on Amazon for anyone to view is meaningless in regards to copyright.

Incorrect. The courts/the jury are allowed to adjust the statutory damages after taking account of actual damages, though it doesn't have to be proportional. See, for example, "Therefore, due process does not require that [the statutory damages award] be confined or proportioned to [the plaintiffs] loss or damages. However, because statutory damages have, in part, a compensatory purpose, assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered.” Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 799 F. Supp. 2d 999, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1183 (D. Minn. 2011), "While it is clear that to require a plaintiff to adduce specific proof of actual damages or profits would contravene the purpose of the statutory damages provision, this does not mean that it is irrelevant whether and to what extent a plaintiff has been harmed by a defendant's infringement. To the contrary, numerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered." Bly v. Banbury Books, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Pa. 1986), "In summary, the jury has broad discretion to consider many factors when fixing the amount of a statutory damages award, including (1) the amount of any actual damages to the copyright holder or any profits obtained by the infringer, (2) any difficulties in proving either damages or profits, (3) the infringer's state of mind, (4) the nature of and circumstances surrounding the infringement, (5) the conduct and attitude of the parties in relation to the infringement, and (6) deterrence." Nunes v. Rushton, Case No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah May. 14, 2018)

Whether or not Russ made any money at all from his books, therefore, is an very relevant question.

 

[DavidS877]

No, I was definitely viewing it on the BCC recipient email address (I know I'm not the most tech savvy person on the boards but I'm not THAT retarded). When I tested a second time using three separate email providers, it no longer appeared.

That's a Gmail feature. If you're not listed as "To" or "Cc" then it puts that there when you receive an email. You'd never be able to see any other Bcc recipients though. And most apps don't do that, as you saw with Proton and I just checked Outlook, neither do that helpful little hint.

 

[S.C.U.D.]

Whether or not Russ made any money at all from his books, therefore, is an very relevant question.

Ah, but you forget the clause for what if Russell files a Motion To Just Win The Case Already And Be Awarded Ten Million Dollars, which will surely result in his victory and awarding of exactly the amount he asks for.

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

There is no feature like that on the iPhone, and if there was, it would look like this:
View attachment 6817968
Why is the rest of the picture compressed like he copied it a thousand times but the text isn’t? If it’s really some accessibility feature that only highlights the text, how come the only text that isn’t highlighted with that box is the word ‘other’ here and the time?
View attachment 6817981
Looks to me that one didn’t need to be altered or pasted on top. I think he really fucked up this time. He thought he was clever by faking screenshots but he couldn’t tell how blatantly fake they are because he‘s an actual retard.
I knew this guy had shit-for-brains but this is bad.

He included the same screenshots in his motion to tell the court that the hardship is hardshipping again. They looked fine in that motion. Seriously. Go look.

Them looking odd in the motion to object to the thing defendants want to do is probably just jpg artifacting or similar from being copied and pasted between documents.

I'll just go with "SHOW US THE HEADERS, RUSS

The iPhone won't let you show headers.

I can't prove it without doxing myself but you can only see the from email address by either clicking on the name or by forwarding the email to someone else. At which point you can see the complete contents of To, From, the date and the subject. None of the other headers.

 

[DavidS877]

The iPhone won't let you show headers.

Maybe if it's just me but if you're telling the court that someone is harassing you then you need to be able to prove who is doing it. And, of course, all email services I'm aware of have a web/desktop app that can show the full data.

Hopefully since this is not a harassment case it's not actually relevant.

If it were still harassment it would be a whole round of great fun in discovery where Null needs to explain to Hardin to explain to Greer that he needs to send over a full and complete copy of each email so that the source can potentially be tracked. And then Russ would send more jpg screenshots, rinse, repeat.

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

Maybe if it's just me but if you're telling the court that someone is harassing you then you need to be able to prove who is doing it. And, of course, all email services I'm aware of have a web/desktop app that can show the full data.

Hopefully since this is not a harassment case it's not actually relevant.

If it were still harassment it would be a whole round of great fun in discovery where Null needs to explain to Hardin to explain to Greer that he needs to send over a full and complete copy of each email so that the source can potentially be tracked. And then Russ would send more jpg screenshots, rinse, repeat.

I agree. I don't think his half-cut off screenshots of anything and everything should qualify for evidence submissions. Because you can't see what you can't see and thus can't defend against it. I'm amazed that's never been brought up by either of the lawyers in this case.

Russ is too much of a tard to be able to use Gmail on a computer to show headers, and the iPhone won't let him.

 

[lolwatagain]

Incorrect. The courts/the jury are allowed to adjust the statutory damages after taking account of actual damages, though it doesn't have to be proportional. See, for example, "Therefore, due process does not require that [the statutory damages award] be confined or proportioned to [the plaintiffs] loss or damages. However, because statutory damages have, in part, a compensatory purpose, assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered.” Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 799 F. Supp. 2d 999, 100 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1183 (D. Minn. 2011), "While it is clear that to require a plaintiff to adduce specific proof of actual damages or profits would contravene the purpose of the statutory damages provision, this does not mean that it is irrelevant whether and to what extent a plaintiff has been harmed by a defendant's infringement. To the contrary, numerous courts have held that assessed statutory damages should bear some relation to the actual damages suffered." Bly v. Banbury Books, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Pa. 1986), "In summary, the jury has broad discretion to consider many factors when fixing the amount of a statutory damages award, including (1) the amount of any actual damages to the copyright holder or any profits obtained by the infringer, (2) any difficulties in proving either damages or profits, (3) the infringer's state of mind, (4) the nature of and circumstances surrounding the infringement, (5) the conduct and attitude of the parties in relation to the infringement, and (6) deterrence." Nunes v. Rushton, Case No. 2:14-cv-00627-JNP-DBP (D. Utah May. 14, 201

Whether or not Russ made any money at all from his books, therefore, is an very relevant question.

I agree, it should be relevant, but Judges and Juries are given a lot of discretion in setting the value between $750 and $30,000 per work to a value that they think is "fair." And typically that results in a number being selected that feels "fair" first, with any post-hoc justification being provided afterward. In fair world, his lack of profit would be relevant for statutory damages and we'd have more than persuasive authority for it, but emotion plays a huge role in determining what number is "fair." So a jury full of retarded bleeding hearts may find that Shitlips wouldn't make any money on his book or song, but he deserves $30,000 because it is fair, because of his plights.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So a jury full of retarded bleeding hearts may find that Shitlips wouldn't make any money on his book or song, but he deserves $30,000 because it is fair, because of his plights.

Juries are not exempted from having bad verdics be overturned, though, under a few theories (such as if the Judge improperly instructs the Jury (that is if there even will be a Jury)). I agree with your original point that the damages are not the death knell of Russ' case as some posters hope for, but I think the importance of mitigating the damage should not be understated.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

That's not going to protect them if Hardin gets interested. The virtual office in Iceland might not play ball, but Namecheap is based in the US and can be subpoenaed...

Thus, I am starting to think that perhaps the various mean emails, negative reviews, and other nonsense that Greer files as exhibits should be investigated, their sources identified, and if not sent by Greer himself, their authors subpoenaed so they can be grilled on whether or not Dear Feeder or anyone else here directed them to fuck with Greer or his copyrights.

Fortunately, the supposedly infringing copy of Greer's book was hosted on Google drive, all of the mean emails Greer is receiving are at a Google address, and it looks like his weens might be using Google mail as well. Google's bread and butter is the collection and organization of data. They operate in the US, and can be subpoenaed, and so will probably respond to a request to preserve evidence...

no sale Russ, do your own doxing on your dime and time.

in seriousness: if the judge is so insane as to accept and act on Russ's irrelevant allegations of a KF conspiracy (I don't think he is), he's not going to be dissuaded anyway. The only real benefit here would be if you can prove Russ sent himself something to put in an exhibit. And what if you find one of these mystery men and they are a KF user? It's not like there's anything preventing that, anyone can register. I think this case is circling the drain anyway without trying identify people who call russ "shitlips"

 

[3-2-1836]

Why is Greer living in Wyoming even a matter of contention? He has continued the case for several years while living in Nevada, a completely different federal circuit, him being in Wyoming simply means he's now a resident of the 10th circuit again.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Why is Greer living in Wyoming even a matter of contention?

This is one reason:

The problem is that this is yet another time Greer purposely and knowingly lied to the court about his address, his real address being in a state that Utah might not even have jurisdiction over.

 

[obsdj]

Why is Greer living in Wyoming even a matter of contention? He has continued the case for several years while living in Nevada, a completely different federal circuit, him being in Wyoming simply means he's now a resident of the 10th circuit again.

Yeah, I think the whole "where does he live" thing is a misstep and a waste of time. Pressing for a mailing address that won't return to sender is a valid concern, but the other stuff seems like a stretch and not something that will persuade the judge to make a move.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Again, in the book, Russ depicts his firing as a martyrdom because he could only keep his job by calling the Swift Suit a publicity stunt, but Russell refused to lie because it would be spitting on his family!

Then he turns around and calls it a stunt eight years too late to keep the job

 

[lolwatagain]

Yeah, I think the whole "where does he live" thing is a misstep and a waste of time. Pressing for a mailing address that won't return to sender is a valid concern, but the other stuff seems like a stretch and not something that will persuade the judge to make a move.

It's an issue insofar as he's lying to the court, he shouldn't be lying about it, especially since it is a pointless thing to lie about.

It's not an issue as to jurisdiction because he's consented to personal jurisdiction in Utah by filing the suit there, and the Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction because Copyright is a Federal Question. But I don't see how Utah is still the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). None of the Defendants are in Utah, no acts occurred in Utah and no witnesses are present in Utah, and venue would be proper in Florida or West Virginia.

The Court has the authority to change venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). There's no point in keeping the case in Utah aside from Shitlips' whining so he can just inconvenience Null.

Edit: That being said, it's better for the judge to end the shitshow now instead of transferring.

 

[obsdj]

It's an issue insofar as he's lying to the court, he shouldn't be lying about it, especially since it is a pointless thing to lie about.

It's not an issue as to jurisdiction because he's consented to personal jurisdiction in Utah by filing the suit there, and the Court has Subject Matter Jurisdiction because Copyright is a Federal Question. But I don't see how Utah is still the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). None of the Defendants are in Utah, no acts occurred in Utah and no witnesses are present in Utah, and venue would be proper in Florida or West Virginia.

The Court has the authority to change venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). There's no point in keeping the case in Utah aside from Shitlips' whining so he can just inconvenience Null.

Edit: That being said, it's better for the judge to end the shitshow now instead of transferring.

If the judge finds that persuasive, cool beans, but Greer correctly pointed out that Hardin didn't ask him where he lives, just for an address where a hypothetical check might be sent. I don't think anybody including Hardin seriously believes Greer lives in Wyoming, we all know he's homeless in Vegas still.

Instead of making a thing about where Greer lives, I'd much rather see him point out succinctly that Greer can't prove any email he has ever (allegedly) received came from a "Kiwi Farms user" and those emails should not be admissible as evidence. And by extension, that Greer has zero evidence and the case should be punted with prejudice, pronto.

 

[DavidS877]

Instead of making a thing about where Greer lives, I'd much rather see him point out succinctly that Greer can't prove any email he has ever (allegedly) received came from a "Kiwi Farms user" and those emails should not be admissible as evidence. And by extension, that Greer has zero evidence and the case should be punted with prejudice, pronto.

As far as the emails Greer has posted to be allegedly from KF users I don't think any of them have had any relevance to a contributory copyright infringement case. I don't know if it's worth Hardin's time to even mention them.

If Greer tries to enter them as actual evidence during discovery then I could see pointing out that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the case and not even bother with requesting proof of where they come from.

 

[Bogliacci]

Greer correctly pointed out that Hardin didn't ask him where he lives, just for an address where a hypothetical check might be sent

I don't think that cancels out the numerous times Hardin has asked Greer to clarify his address, poster child. This latest address just continues to muddle things. Enjoy speculating, posterchild.