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

[Bill Evans 45]

Russtard does not seem to understand have already been imposed, and that it's just a matter of how much he gets sanctioned, not whether it happens.

"If you don't sanction me again, I'll hold off getting a protective order against you for getting sanctions against me the first time!" Truly a deal Hardin can't refuse.

Russell doesn't seem to understand that he's bring sanctioned by the Judge and not by Hardin.
His utter failure to understand the power balance in this and every other aspect of his life is truly mind boggling.

 

[kcbbq]

Russell doesn't seem to understand that he's bring sanctioned by the Judge and not by Hardin.

He doesn't really understand anything.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Russell doesn't seem to understand that he's bring sanctioned by the Judge and not by Hardin.
His utter failure to understand the power balance in this and every other aspect of his life is truly mind boggling.

Maybe YOU don't understand, buddy boy

Here's how this works:

Judge: Friend, like a big lawyer
Plaintiff: Good guy, everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt, not required to litigate case, because Judge does that for him
Defendant's Lawyer: Supposed to be a neutral third party! But Hardin's a bad lawyer, so he's doing it all wrong
Defendant: Bad guy, assumed guilty, not supposed to be able to raise money

Hope this clears thing up

I'm
7

 

[Winsome Whimsical Waif]

Only explanation I can think of for how he ended up citing cases from like the fucking 1830's in his Taylor Swift lawsuit.

This retard quoted caselaw from the 19th century??? I need to go finish reading his Swift case because I had no idea how much I was missing. Would anyone happen to remember where he says this? What possible context from a Victorian era case could he have divined in order to simulate actual legal arguments for the modern era?

What's he going to quote next, the Articles of Confederation or do you think he will go straight for the Magna Carta?


I can't wait for Greer to showcase his outstanding legal acumen by proving that the older the law cited, the more correct the lawyer plighted.

 

[DHugo]

This retard quoted caselaw from the 19th century???

He's an og nigga, straight from the plantation, non of this hood shit.

 

[DJ Grelle]

He's an og nigga, straight from the plantation, non of this hood shit.

He's preparing for his ultimate fate: being an indentured servant, breaking his back doing hard labor to pay the infamous "kiwi farms" plantation; located in the swamps of Florida; where many perish under the whip to provide the "lolcow milk" for Joshua "massa" Moon.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It's just hearsay and I don't think it has standing. Granted, this is much more serious but still. The point still stands.

I love when people use words without knowing their meaning. On the off chance that you will be possessed by the spirit of curiosity, feel free to look into Hughes v Benjamin.

This retard quoted caselaw from the 19th century??? I need to go finish reading his Swift case because I had no idea how much I was missing. Would anyone happen to remember where he says this? What possible context from a Victorian era case could he have divined in order to simulate actual legal arguments for the modern era?

The courts routinely (particularly the Supreme Court) cite cases from 1800s and from the King's court in 1700s to illuminate and provide guidance on constitutional issues.

 

[obsdj]

The courts routinely (particularly the Supreme Court) cite cases from 1800s and from the King's court in 1700s to illuminate and provide guidance on constitutional issues.

If Greer wants to really impress the judges (and the Holy 10th Circuit), he should try to find a way to invoke the Solonian constitution and Hammurabi's Code in his next filing. Go seriously old-school.

 

[Winsome Whimsical Waif]

The courts routinely (particularly the Supreme Court) cite cases from 1800s and from the King's court in 1700s to illuminate and provide guidance on constitutional issues.

Thank you for the insight. I can understand on a conceptual level why this happens, after all the law doesn't just 'expire'. I was just more focused on the absurdity that Russell Greer would know what to do with citing cases that are so far back in time when he barely knows how to properly apply case citations from modern times that are much better suited to directly addressing the facts of this case. (Not to say that a historical case couldn't do so, but I think we can agree that a more recent case would better apply to a case involving such recent inventions as the internet and digital files.)

If Greer wants to really impress the judges (and the Holy 10th Circuit), he should try to find a way to invoke the Solonian constitution and Hammurabi's Code in his next filing. Go seriously old-school.

I was hoping someone would mention Hammurabi's Code

 

[Justice Tony]

I love when people use words without knowing their meaning. On the off chance that you will be possessed by the spirit of curiosity, feel free to look into Hughes v Benjamin.

Just read over the case, at least the awarding of attorneys fees, and I see your point and stand corrected. I’d have to read the full opinion to see if the twitter statements also fed into getting the case dismissed but at the very least Moon could definitely recover some attorneys fees. Thank you for the info.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

if the twitter statements also fed into getting the case dismissed

It did not, if memory serves me correctly, but it was the determining factor to determine whether the litigation was in good faith. That said it is important to know that the court can use that to order Rule 11 dismissal as a sanction. See, for example, King v. Fleming, 899 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2018) (holding that fabricating evidence, and refusing to retract it, satisfied all the factors of dismissal-as-a-sanction test, also holding that the "court may consider factors such as the offending party's history, experience, and ability, the severity of the violation, the degree to which malice or bad faith contributed to the violation, the risk of chilling the type of litigation involved, and other factors as deemed appropriate in individual circumstances." when considering sanctions)

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

If Greer wants to really impress the judges (and the Holy 10th Circuit), he should try to find a way to invoke the Solonian constitution and Hammurabi's Code in his next filing. Go seriously old-school.

He needs to simply call the 10th judges Hammurabi themselves. Flattery is everything in legal pleadings.

 

[Justice Tony]

He needs to simply call the 10th judges Hammurabi themselves. Flattery is everything in legal pleadings.

“Your Hammurabi prostitution should be legal, you have no right to control whether or not I pay a woman to suck me my penis.” — Russ

It did not, if memory serves me correctly, but it was the determining factor to determine whether the litigation was in good faith. That said it is important to know that the court can use that to order Rule 11 dismissal as a sanction. See, for example, King v. Fleming, 899 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2018) (holding that fabricating evidence, and refusing to retract it, satisfied all the factors of dismissal-as-a-sanction test, also holding that the "court may consider factors such as the offending party's history, experience, and ability, the severity of the violation, the degree to which malice or bad faith contributed to the violation, the risk of chilling the type of litigation involved, and other factors as deemed appropriate in individual circumstances." when considering sanctions)

I’m not familiar with that case but it definitely seems like a good read. A rule 11 dismissal seems promising but given we’re talking about Russ why the hell hasn’t it happened yet? Did the appellate court decision preclude that?

 

[AnOminous]

The courts routinely (particularly the Supreme Court) cite cases from 1800s and from the King's court in 1700s to illuminate and provide guidance on constitutional issues.

It's usually stuff like Marbury v. Madison and actually important cases, though, not some nothing case where there are far more relevant recent cases, and it's to emphasize the antiquity and consistency of a doctrine over centuries, not just because it was the first hit a retard got on Google.

You'd also usually follow it with the most recent case from an appeals court your local court is bound by that articulates the same issue. So in a jurisdiction case, you might throw down Int'l Shoe and Burger King (and even maybe Pennoyer v. Neff), but you'd usually follow with more recent Supreme Court and local circuit precedent more relevant to your specific case interpreting them.

You also wouldn't be citing most of the ancient case law in law school textbooks that is only notable for having been included in law school textbooks since forever.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

A rule 11 dismissal seems promising but given we’re talking about Russ why the hell hasn’t it happened yet?

I can't speak on behalf of Mr. Hardin, but I assume he has seen nothing to suggest that the District Judge would be receptacle to such a motion. The Magistrate wouldn't, but he also can't rule on it (see for example Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries, 847 F.2d 1458 (10th Cir. 1988), or Quint v. Vail Resorts, Inc., 89 F.4th 803 (10th Cir. 2023))

Did the appellate court decision preclude that?

No.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I’m not even a paralegal, but it seems strategically best right now for Hardin to proceed as if they’re in discovery and do everything on the up and up. After the current sanctions discussion is resolved and depending on how things go, then Rule 11 could be brought up.

What you do NOT want to do is give any excuse for the court to say the likes of “the retard fucked up hard, but you didn’t do X or Y which you could have to help fix it, so we’re gonna call a mulligan and declare it moot.”

 

[Kosher Dill]

I’m not even a paralegal, but it seems strategically best right now for Hardin to proceed as if they’re in discovery

Yes, if there's one thing this judge has made abundantly clear, it's this.
Moving toward a full jury trial: Happy Judge
Anything else: Angry Judge

I think the needle Hardin's got to thread is how to represent Null's interests without veering too far into Angry Judge territory. That latest motion about an adverse inference probably banked up a little Happy Judge credit because it presumes the existence of a trial.

 

[obsdj]

That latest motion about an adverse inference probably banked up a little Happy Judge credit because it presumes the existence of a trial.

I dunno, the judge seems to have been none too pleased with Hardin's filings and has twice refused to exclude evidence. Plus Hardin still has to respond to the whole "debtor examination" thing, AND Greer's stupid amended complaint, both of which I think are due this month. Meanwhile we wait on the District Judge's ruling on the objection, and if denied, the Magistrate's ruling on the fee sanctions. I don't think the Magistrate is having a good time with all the extraneous filings and responses and retarded email exhibits.

 

[Thomas Talus]

You also wouldn't be citing most of the ancient case law in law school textbooks that is only notable for having been included in law school textbooks since forever.

One of the cases in my Contracts textbook was Taylor v. Caldwell 122 Eng.Rep. 309 (1863), which in turn cited Justinian's Digest 45.1.33 (~530-533), although as persuasive historical precedent, not binding precedent.

 

[ButWhyTho]

Yes, if there's one thing this judge has made abundantly clear, it's this.
Moving toward a full jury trial: Happy Judge
Anything else: Angry Judge

I think the needle Hardin's got to thread is how to represent Null's interests without veering too far into Angry Judge territory. That latest motion about an adverse inference probably banked up a little Happy Judge credit because it presumes the existence of a trial.

There won't be a jury trial. If the case does end up going to trial it'll be a bench trial. If I remember correctly, Russ would've had to ask for a jury trial a long time ago and the window has long since closed.