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

[Sweeter and Savoury]

You guys have to remember that Hardin has other clients besides Dear Feader. In fact I believe that he has 2 cases going before the State Supreme Court this month so the tragi-comdey that is this suit doesn't have priority. Rulings will come when they come. if your a legal cow devotee it's just a fact of life you have to accept. the wheels of the court grind slowly.

He's a busy dude and we should all be grateful he's doing what he does on Jersh's behalf.

 

[The Dude]

You guys have to remember that Hardin has other clients besides Dear Feader. In fact I believe that he has 2 cases going before the State Supreme Court this month so the tragi-comdey that is this suit doesn't have priority. Rulings will come when they come. if your a legal cow devotee it's just a fact of life you have to accept. the wheels of the court grind slowly.

He's a busy dude and we should all be grateful he's doing what he does on Jersh's behalf.

Fuck that noise. Our entertainment and lulz are far more important than any of that faggy shit. Hardin needs to get off his lazy ass and make with the funnies, most ricky-fucking-tick.

 

[Bogliacci]

Hardin is in the boat with us waiting on the judge to actually do something.

 

[Moths]

Well this case is probably on the judges backburner anyway for being:
A) Probably the top trashfire on his docket.
B) Discovery deadlines kicked back to midyear.
C) Nothing ever happens.

 

[Napoleon III]

Tweets along those lines helped convince the court to award costs in sargoy of swindon v sassy fat black woman.

I have a question for anyone with knowledge of the legal system. If you are judge issuing a judgement on a case would you tend to mirror the winning party's argument even if it is not the best to try and make your judgement as strong as possible or would you actually be as fair and neutral as possible and only say a particular argument of the winning party was right if it was actually true.

the wheels of the court grind slowly.

Most court cases move slowly, maybe this case is moving slowly because it is not as much of a lolsuit anymore.

I'm guilty of being an eternal optimist.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm guilty of being an eternal optimist.

You're what we need more of.

I'm an eternal pessimist. No matter what the worst possible thing that can happen, what will actually happen will be even worse.

 

[Greasy Goblin]

You're what we need more of.

I'm an eternal pessimist. No matter what the worst possible thing that can happen, what will actually happen will be even worse.

Well, there's literally nothing worse than being wrong on the internet, so if the worst thing will happen (being wrong) you could always derive optimism from the very act of posting something pessimistic

 

[Debbie Macomber]

If Russell ever writes "Why I sued a Bunch of Internet Weirdoes" it won't just be about kiwifarms.

Like the Taylor Swift book went into unnecessary detail on the kill list incident, his mission, hookers, suing a hooker, Bailey Barnard, a kiwifarms book would likely relitigate everything in his life since, like Erika, America's Got Talent, another hooker suit, his eviction and homeless saga, his dad being in the hospital, all retold in a narrative through the same Russell lens!

 

[Moths]

If Russell ever writes "Why I sued a Bunch of Internet Weirdoes" it won't just be about kiwifarms.

Like the Taylor Swift book went into unnecessary detail on the kill list incident, his mission, hookers, suing a hooker, Bailey Barnard, a kiwifarms book would likely relitigate everything in his life since, like Erika, America's Got Talent, another hooker suit, his eviction and homeless saga, his dad being in the hospital, all retold in a narrative through the same Russell lens!

Well following Russel's history at least he'll give away copies for free again by uploading the entire thing to the preview.

 

[Harvey Danger]

My suit's gone cold I'm wondering why I had left Utah at all
The morning drool clouds up my windshield, and I can't goon at all
And even if I could it'd all be gay, but your comment on my Wall
It reminds me, that it's all so bad, it's all so sad

Dear Josh, I sued you but you still ain't settling
I left my plights, my iPhone, and a 6 at the bottom
I sent two emails back in autumn, you must not've got 'em
There probably was a problem at the clerk's office or something
Sometimes I scribble addresses too sloppy when I jot 'em
But anyways; fuck it, what's been up? Man, how's your web site?
My PAC'S got one, too, I'm bout to be a pimp (tight)
If I have a bottom ho, guess what I'mma call her?
I'mma name her Taytay.
I read about your friend Vinny, too, I'm sorry
I had a "friend" get sued over some bitch who didn't want him

I know you probably hear this every day, but I'm your biggest target
I even got the Hitler emails that you did with Hardin
I got a room full of hate posts and your lolcow sketches, Hardship
I saw the thread you did with DMCA, that shit was whack
Anyways, I hope you get this, Moon, confer me back
Just to settle, truly yours, your biggest victim
This is Russ

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

it is not as much of a lolsuit anymore

have we been reading the same filings?

 

[Thomas Talus]

I have a question for anyone with knowledge of the legal system. If you are judge issuing a judgement on a case would you tend to mirror the winning party's argument even if it is not the best to try and make your judgement as strong as possible or would you actually be as fair and neutral as possible and only say a particular argument of the winning party was right if it was actually true.

A judge regurgitating a bad argument put forth by the winning party is begging for the loser to appeal. And if it's a bad argument, how did they win in the first place (unless one side simply failed to meet their burden of proof, in which case you focus on that and dismiss the rest as moot)?

 

[Bill Evans 45]

I'm an eternal pessimist. No matter what the worst possible thing that can happen, what will actually happen will be even worse.

I have different reasons. If the worst happens, I'm prepared for it. If the worst doesn't happen, everything's sunshine.

 

[Jew-ish]

It's kind of sad that Russell spend the entirety of the holidays making insane filings with the court instead of spending time with his family.

I say kind of because it's probably a blessing for his family.

Now all of a sudden the milk runs dry as soon as people are done celebrating with loved ones. It's almost like the gimp was trying to distract himself during a particularly lonely time of year... or maybe the brothels close for Thanksgiving and Xmas, who knows.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

If Russell ever writes "Why I sued a Bunch of Internet Weirdoes" it won't just be about kiwifarms.

Like the Taylor Swift book went into unnecessary detail on the kill list incident, his mission, hookers, suing a hooker, Bailey Barnard, a kiwifarms book would likely relitigate everything in his life since, like Erika, America's Got Talent, another hooker suit, his eviction and homeless saga, his dad being in the hospital, all retold in a narrative through the same Russell lens!

I don't think it's unnecessary, we need a full explanation about his plights and why he delayed his case for years.

 

[DHugo]

I have funny withdrawal. I need the judge to make a decision.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

I have a question for anyone with knowledge of the legal system. If you are judge issuing a judgement on a case would you tend to mirror the winning party's argument even if it is not the best to try and make your judgement as strong as possible or would you actually be as fair and neutral as possible and only say a particular argument of the winning party was right if it was actually true.

Depends on the judge. In my experience, which is not reflective of most practitioners, a judge who just follows the briefs is not a very good judge. They tend not to have much discernment about what the real dispositive issues in the case are. If you’re confident in your legal analysis, your opinion should reflect that rather than be a drawling piece that reads “plaintiff argues…defendant argues…plaintiff responds…we agree with [person] because [person’s arguments from brief], now for issue 2 plaintiff argues…”.

Sometimes both parties raise issues that do not control the outcome, and you fail to see that if you only read their briefs. Or they entirely miss a baseline issue. A good Judge finds those.

 

[Napoleon III]

A judge regurgitating a bad argument put forth by the winning party is begging for the loser to appeal. And if it's a bad argument, how did they win in the first place (unless one side simply failed to meet their burden of proof, in which case you focus on that and dismiss the rest as moot)?

I think you would make every possible reasonable argument that ultimately feeds into your argument to make it as strong as possible. Of course there are diminishing returns of making x argument with y chance to succeed where that argument is a stretch.

The other reason not to do this is you can bury your stronger arguments amongst weaker ones thus potentially decreasing the strength of your main argument.

But in general it makes sense to attach some side arguments that you have some evidence for, but aren't conclusive, if you those side arguments support the overall argument.

I asked in particular in reference to the Sargon Case because, the finding the judge had is an incredibly damning finding, and I wanted to know if the Judge would be maximalist because it serves his immediate interest or because it actually is true.

Thanks for answering my question.

Depends on the judge.

I see, due to the nature of law there can be no always, but in general Judges will not put their reputation on the line in order to strengthen or weaken an individual judgement/ruling.

Thanks for answering my question.

have we been reading the same filings?

oh indeed the filings have been quite enjoyable, however there is a lack of them recently.

 

[Thomas Talus]

I think you would make every possible reasonable argument that ultimately feeds into your argument to make it as strong as possible. Of course there are diminishing returns of making x argument with y chance to succeed where that argument is a stretch.

The other reason not to do this is you can bury your stronger arguments amongst weaker ones thus potentially decreasing the strength of your main argument.

But in general it makes sense to attach some side arguments that you have some evidence for, but aren't conclusive, if you those side arguments support the overall argument.

I asked in particular in reference to the Sargon Case because, the finding the judge had is an incredibly damning finding, and I wanted to know if the Judge would be maximalist because it serves his immediate interest or because it actually is true.

Thanks for answering my question.

If the argument isn't necessary to address to reach the verdict, the judge can just say "because [dispositive issue], we need not consider the question of [side arguments]."

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

If the argument isn't necessary to address to reach the verdict, the judge can just say "because [dispositive issue], we need not consider the question of [side arguments]."

Judges love mooting shit because they don’t have to make a stand on a question - half of Thomas’s “I agree” positions where he writes his own are variations on “the pussyass court again dodged answering the underlying issue which they should do if they ever get the balls” - quite entertaining, to be sure.