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

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 66 13.8%

  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 11.7%

  • This Year

    Votes: 74 15.4%

  • Next Year

    Votes: 165 34.4%

  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 119 24.8%
  • Total voters
    480
Status
Not open for further replies.
1738623101716.png
Russ confirmed this pic was taken by Steve Taylor.
On Rekieta stream he hosted a woman claiming to have been Russell's college classmate. She said he was asking around everyone to take his pic (she was there).
But it's more believable that he specifically asked Steve, I find it hard to believe that it's a coincidence he took it. So was the woman just trolling Rekieta?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Clovis, Instant_Pot_User, Disgruntled Pupper and 24 others
AnOminous said:
No, you should definitely list people as witnesses in your case who you haven't even talked to since they were GODDAMN DEAD FOR ALMOST A YEAR, and you should definitely list your family as witnesses, without telling them that you're doing it, because they'll surely give great testimony in your plightsuit even though they banned you from a wedding because of plightsperging.
Click to expand...
Well Steve was only dead since January 2024, so like three to four months before Greer had written his motion. But apparently he hadn't even really spoken to Steve since 2021 due to their "falling out"

1738623288208.png
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
Reactions: Disgruntled Pupper, ConSluttant, and six goriilion others and 15 others
Here's the original mentioning of Steve Taylor, to refresh our memories:

1738623304760.png

Emphasis not added by me, but this was the legal argument as Greer made it back in May of 2024. Notice how he emphasizes "REAL witnesses who are eager to testify" in it? Yeah, when you say "REAL witnesses who are eager," that doesn't mean "I have three witnesses, only one of them is eager and only two of them are real."
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Vecr, Clovis, Instant_Pot_User and 24 others
Null said:
what's funny about this filing is that it replies more to the KF thread than it does Hardin's filing. So if you needed additional motivation to keep your mouth shut, here you go.
Click to expand...
is there any way that can be asked in a legal filing?

i doubt it would help you much, but it would be amusing to have Russ admit that the only reason he found out why his witness wouldn't reply to him is the thread (I doubt he even tried to communicate with him since 2021 or he'd have gotten the "HE DAID" bounce response).

Also that "2 to 7 months litigating the case" really drives home that Greer doesn't realize he's the plaintiff ...
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Not a bee, TooManyKittens, Broken Cuddles and 4 others
I thought Section 2 would be the meat of his actual legal argument. I was wrong. This is mental.

It was a mistake for plaintiff to openly list potential witnesses, who had said years prior they would testify, but plaintiff should not be punished for “mistake of form.”
Click to expand...

Mistake of form?
MISTAKE OF FORM?!?
You spoke about three witnesses you hadn't secured as witnesses, and ONE OF THEM WAS DEAD! He was not mistakenly included, he is a NON-VIABLE witness! He has CEASED TO BE! What the hell does Russ think a mistake of substance looks like?

In a fit of autistic rage, I looked up that case he cited, Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North America. You will be shocked to learn that Greer has, once again, cited a case that makes him look like a dishonest retard.

Here is the factual background of a defendant who should not be punished for "mistake of form".

[Defendant] Susan was served with a copy of the cross-claim in Massachusetts on December 24, 1990. Acting pro se, Susan prepared an answer, which she mailed to the [California] district court for filing on January 12, 1991. However, because of her failure to comply with a number of local procedural rules, her answer was not filed. The district court did not return the answer to Susan, or otherwise notify her that it had not accepted her papers, and Susan did not discover until April that they had not been filed. Having received no answer, [plaintiff] Cynthia moved for a default judgment on her cross-claim on January 25, 1991. The clerk entered a default against Susan on January 30 on the cross-claim.
Click to expand...

This was a pro se defendant who tried to file an answer, messed up a local rule in a state across the country, and was not informed by the court. She even got a local lawyer to help her with the paperwork, but the MA lawyer didn't know about the CA rules (this was in the pre-Internet days, not easy to look up). The court justly ruled she should not get the harshest penalty, a default judgement, for messing up paperwork styling.

That's a far fucking cry from someone who didn't bother getting real witnesses for 2 years out of a 4 year case.

This line made me get up and take a brief, angry walk.

Even without witnesses, copyright law and the evidence swings in plaintiff’s favor.
Click to expand...

There are zero witnesses, yet somehow there is even less evidence in this suit.

I can't fathom what stupid pile of "evidence" he thinks remains. I can't even figure out what he thinks is swinging in his favor--the motion? the sanctions? the benefit of the doubt for the entire motion? the tipping point of the analysis on whether he's doing stuff in good faith? How does COPYRIGHT LAW prove you are acting in good faith?!?
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Instant_Pot_User, Clovis, Pedophobe and 28 others
Broken Cuddles said:
They haven’t been trying to get him “fined at every innocent misstep.”
Click to expand...
If anything, they've been patiently asking for the case to be dismissed and not sanctions, though that has started to be mentioned, since it's been a fucking year since the retransfer almost and we have jack and shit for discovery (though I suppose some evidence has been processed via discovery privately).
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Instant_Pot_User, Poop Shoot, ConSluttant and 8 others
Probably An Autist said:
how dare you dredge up memories of a deceased friend by informing him that his star witness is actually fuckin dead.
Click to expand...
This had to be the most bullshit part of his filing.

Hardin would have had quite fucking literally no way of knowing he was "dredging up memories of a dead friend" because Greer himself never made any indication that he was dead leading up to Hardin's filing. Even if Greer learned about it from this thread, he'd know that when the dead Steve Taylor was mentioned here it was originally discounted as no one believed he'd mention a dead man as his witness in the case. It was only when someone realized it was the same Steve Taylor who appeared for 2 seconds in a reupload of a years old Greer video that people realized it was him.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Rattus Ebrius, Instant_Pot_User, Clovis and 23 others
Looseleaf Paper said:
View attachment 6938176
No wonder Greer never wants to prosecute this case. Doing so reminds him of his dead friend and getting the case done would just make him feel even worse about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, his dear friend with whom he has a really close relationship despite not having spoken in YEARS or having checked to see if he was still alive

TO BE FAIR, this doesn't sound too different than a lot of guy-friendships. But it's a different story when you are calling someone as a witness in a federal case.

Still left unanswered is what the fuck these dead guy was supposed to testify about with relevance to this copyright case.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: lilypanda, Pedophobe, Poop Shoot and 13 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back