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

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Legal documents are extremely precise. There is no "gist", you fucking drooling moron.

That's the reason you don't understand legalese. You spent all your valuable study time (and money) chasing after whores instead of reading a fucking book.

Half a decade studying law and you can't parse a simple boilerplate document? You're absolutely correct, you are disabled. Just not in the way you think you are.

 

[obsdj]

I thought that was what was just filed.

No, today's filing is just "for an adverse inference relating to Steve Taylor" (who Greer probably made up out of whole, drool-saturated cloth in order to get his case transferred back to Utah).

 

[FamicomGorby]

I once again have to beg people to at least pretend to read things if you want to participate in a discussion forum.

I did read it, at the end of what Hardin just filed he's asking the court to potentially sanction Greer



@obsdj corrected me

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

Of course he will, but I meant the sanctions Hardin has shown to Greer but hasn't filed yet:
View attachment 6922934

oh yeah. i would guess the motion will be to sanction russ for repeatedly making false statements about 1. hardin violating court orders and 2. witnesses, possibly among other things that rusty selectively chose not to respond to in this email as he likes to do, its not like hardin would have any shortage of rustys blatant lies to point to

 

[obsdj]

Legal documents are extremely precise. There is no "gist", you fucking drooling moron.

That's the reason you don't understand legalese. You spent all your valuable study time (and money) chasing after whores instead of reading a fucking book.

Half a decade studying law and you can't parse a simple boilerplate document? You're absolutely correct, you are disabled. Just not in the way you think you are.

Seriously. I've said this before, but when it comes to legal documents, you generally are not allowed to decide for yourself what they "basically" mean. If people were allowed to do that, the legal landscape of our nation would be a wildly different place, with a lot more crayons and drooling.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I did read it

I say it as patiently as I can, but it was noted at least twice, once in the motion, and once in an exhibit, and the name is different, and hell, even citations are to a different rule. I don't think it's too much to ask for some carefulness and being able to put two and two together.

 

[CEO of Gay]

Why yes. Yes he could. I've actually been waiting for this and the resultant Beaker-esque flailing from Russ.

I suspect part of the reason he hasn't yet, is because he didn't have enough information to do so, even if he wanted to. A name, unless particularly unique, does not necessarily lead to dox. Now Hardin has not just a name, but also the nature of that person's association with Greer, as well as the general time and place of that association. That will narrow things down a lot more and will make this Steve Taylor a lot more findable. As a bonus, Greer admits to having discoverable communications that he has not yet disclosed.

I'm not sure how Russ is able to work the pedals of the car he's renting to do Uber work with how often he keeps shooting himself in the foot.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

holy fuck can someone please explain to Russ'tard that Hardin is not supposed to be a "neutral party" in this endeavour?

How the fuck a educated para-legal does not understand the very fundamental aspects of the legal system is beyond me. Fuck Russelll should go back to the school that passed his dumb ass and ask for a refund.

Yes Russ'tard anything you email to Hardin can be used in court, you do not have client privileges with Hardin, he is not your lawyer.
No child Hardin is under no onus to explain to you how to prosecute your case.
Yes stalker child enjoy sanctions.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Just like with his bullshit "settle the case by giving me everything I want" strategy, Russ is channeling his inner Art of the Deal by insisting Mr Hardin not try to sanction him in exchange for not sanctioning Mr. Hardin sooner, as opposed to not trying to get him sanctioned at all.

 

[BoomerPrime]

How? How is this STILL HAPPENING? First of all, there is no numeral "1" in the idiot's email so why should there be a "2"? And WHY is he still flipping out (incorrectly!) about the SPO, even after being smacked down by the judge on the subject? Hardin didn't even mention it, so why's he bringing it up? (Was it part of the secret sanctions that we haven't seen yet?)

In a perfect world, Russ would have started his bullet points with "6)"

Also:

 

[ConSluttant]

Let me try maybe putting yourself in my shoes because you're not doing that.

Russ. Hardin doesn't have to do that. Ever. He represents the defendant. You are the plaintiff. You have two separate jobs in this lawsuit. Is there ever a turn of phrase you will not use in the exact wrong way?

You're doing a lot of looking on from the outside and accusing me of stuff without knowing any facts and the figurative wrestling I've had to do with the once proposed witnesses.

Thank God above that it was only figurative wrestling. Because literal wresting? Ew. Just ew. Keep your homosexual fantasies away from lawsuits my dude.

As for protective orders... You asked me what provision you violated. I was telling you the gist of the protective order said you would keep it secret.

Russ. Protective orders don't have "gists." They have PRECISE LANGUAGE. Because you need to spell that shit out. It says in the SPO that you MUST CALL OUT THE INFORMATION YOU WANT PROTECTED USING SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. Did you use that language? No? Then it WASN'T PROTECTED.

I urge you to not file the motion for sanctions. That will only speed up my motion for sanctions against you and the motion for you to lose your pro hac vice status.

YOUR motion for sanctions against HARDIN? For what? For not letting you win? For not settling in ways that you want? For calling out your piss-poor litigation strategy and bad-faith antics? And good luck with the motion for losing pro hac vice status. The judge might sua sponte sanction you. Again. But keep it up. It's entertaining for us. I know I'm living for it.

 

[Shig O'nella]

View attachment 6922780
Unbelievable delusion! This little fucker really thinks he’s got leverage here doesn’t he? He still believes that Hardin violated the protective order, and that he’s one motion away from getting sanctions against him. Russell truly does see himself as an intimidating legal genius.

Alright. Who let little Russ stay up late watching the fucking Sopranos again?
You know that shit's bad for an impressionable boy.

 

[Milton Luther Keynes]

Nice one, counselor and/or Josh.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Seriously. I've said this before, but when it comes to legal documents, you generally are not allowed to decide for yourself what they "basically" mean. If people were allowed to do that, the legal landscape of our nation would be a wildly different place, with a lot more crayons and drooling.

You kind of have to decide what they mean, but if you decide they mean anything other than what most everyone else thinks they mean (including case law, etc), you better have a damn good reason and explain it carefully.

As it is, I don't think russtard has realized what step he skipped, and when he does he's going to explode.

At what point does threatening the other side with sanctions and other shit instead of asking the court to do it go beyond the pale? I mean, at some point if both sides are negotiating sanctions without the court, isn't that kind of defrauding the court? So asking someone to do that is a bit sus?

 

[Harvey Danger]

No, today's filing is just "for an adverse inference relating to Steve Taylor" (who Greer probably made up out of whole, drool-saturated cloth in order to get his case transferred back to Utah).
View attachment 6922950

Did I miss where Hardin says which are "the relevant pleadings"? It's in the unfiled Motion, per Hardin's email exhibit "I demand that you withdraw the referenced pleadings containing false statements within 21 days". But I don't think I saw them listed in the adverse inference filing itself. It covers the discovery lies and the "eager witnesses" lies, but not particular pleadings that can be retracted.

 

[Bridgeburner]

Does anyone really believe Steve Taylor actually exists?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Did I miss where Hardin says which are "the relevant pleadings"?

Those would be contained in his motion for sanctions

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Does anyone really believe Steve Taylor actually exists?

Oh he exists for sure, all 60 of him. Do any have any bearing on the case?

https://www.whitepages.com/name/Steve-Taylor/UT

 

[S.C.U.D.]

Does anyone really believe Steve Taylor actually exists?

No, but Steeve Taylor does.

 

[GloriousScarf]

So if someone lied to the court and said a non-existent person had evidence they don't have (because they don't exist outside the plantiff's mind), what, if anything would happen?