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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

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

  • This Month

    Votes: 66 14.6%
  • Next Month

    Votes: 55 12.1%
  • This Year

    Votes: 72 15.9%
  • Next Year

    Votes: 152 33.6%
  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 108 23.8%

  • Total voters
    453
So nice of him to blatantly state that utilizing protected free speech was a trigger for his lawsuit.
That's an admission that the Copyright Lawsuit is undertaken in Bad Faith, and has nothing to do with the Copyright. But is intended to silence speech that the retard doesn't agree with. I seem to remember there were several Authoritative Cases regarding specifically using Copyright Claims for Bad Faith Purposes such as removing protected speech. Now what were they?..... Stoobins v something Stabbings v someone? I'm sure it will come to me.
 
Screenshot_20250221_202855_Firefox.jpg
Screenshot_20250221_203108_Firefox.jpg
Screenshot_20250221_203245_Firefox.jpg
 

Attachments

Perhaps I am exceedingly retarded, but I thought the judge already gave Greer permission to file his Amended Complaint by 12-31-2024, and Greer's Motion was redundant. He attached the actual FAC as an exhibit instead of filing it directly. The judge never granted the Motion that I remember, not sure why. So it doesn't hurt anything for the Defense to consent, it's just weird that it wasn't auto-granted or the form corrected by the judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pedophobe
Perhaps I am exceedingly retarded, but I thought the judge already gave Greer permission to file his Amended Complaint by 12-31-2024, and Greer's Motion was redundant. He attached the actual FAC as an exhibit instead of filing it directly. The judge never granted the Motion that I remember, not sure why. So it doesn't hurt anything for the Defense to consent, it's just weird that it wasn't auto-granted or the form corrected by the judge.
I believe the way it works in federal court is that even though the scheduling order makes it look like he already has leave in reality it is just considered "timely" within that window, it still required approval of the court but basically the Defendant needs to show a good reason to disallow it. Outside the window it is an untimely amendment and it can still be done, but the court is supposed to look at it more skeptically and require a good reason from the Plaintiff, and have them explain the delay.
 
Back