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

[S.C.U.D.]

I know I'm being optimistic but I feel like the judge is trying to keep this strictly to the copyright issue. Whether that is a good or bad thing, I have no fucking clue.

View attachment 7085155

I think it's a good thing because Russ desperately wants to somehow resurrect the harassment claim and it's just not happening, and that's funny.

 

[GaryGray]

Oh well, if the case goes on until 2028 or so his term will be over and maybe someone competent will take over.

What would a new judge do upon seeing a case over eight years long with 400 plus filings? A condensed summery would be in the hundreds of pages.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Isn't there a distinct legal difference between an order (such as for sanctions in an ongoing case) and a judgment (which it's my impression is a final ruling in a case, at least until it inevitably gets appealed)?

The Judgment as it relates to sanctions, and judgment as it is defined in Title VII (including Rule 62, Greer cites) are completely different. See, for example, MTGLQ Inv’rs v. Wellington, No. 21-2017 (10th Cir. Jul. 20, 2021) ("As the district court noted, Rule 54 does not apply to Rule 37 sanctions. [...] And when Ms. Wellington failed to comply with that order, the district court was permitted to enter judgment enforcing the fee award. [...] That judgment is independent from the final judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54 and is not otherwise subject to Rule 54.")

 

[obsdj]

The Judgment as it relates to sanctions, and judgment as it is defined in Title VII (including Rule 62, Greer cites) are completely different. See, for example, MTGLQ Inv’rs v. Wellington, No. 21-2017 (10th Cir. Jul. 20, 2021) ("As the district court noted, Rule 54 does not apply to Rule 37 sanctions. [...] And when Ms. Wellington failed to comply with that order, the district court was permitted to enter judgment enforcing the fee award. [...] That judgment is independent from the final judgment entered pursuant to Rule 54 and is not otherwise subject to Rule 54.")

Thank you.

That having been clarified...Couldn't/shouldn't Hardin have mentioned this incongruity between Greer's demand and legal reality in his memorandum in opposition today?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That having been clarified...Couldn't/shouldn't Hardin have mentioned this incongruity between Greer's demand and legal reality in his memorandum in opposition today?

I'm not Mr. Hardin, and I cannot speak to his strategies, only to my own thoughts. For all I know, I could be incorrect, or it is an issue not worth raising.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Shit like this is why Hardin needs to stop inserting cute little references to ouija boards and other florid comments and just succinctly make clear the points that have been made in this thread. A bulleted timeline of events, without extraneous colorful vocabulary words, might've been useful before now.

The ouija footnote was fine, it was a necessary point with a bit of flair. Style is fine when you're secure in the facts and flow of the case, but now both judges refuse to treat Russ as the inevitable loser and Hardin/Josh as the aggrieved party.

Up to this point I thought Hardin did a good enough job establishing the underlying problems of the case, but maybe it's time to start treating the judges with tard gloves.

I just started putting together a list of case Greer "disclosed" vs cases he left off the list. I'm an autist refreshing this thread a dozen times a day, so I know we have hashed over things like the litigation list itself, some other suits and some more he left off, etc. But even we don't have a clear list established, ready to read and argue from. The judge isn't following the thread, so he's even further behind in figuring it out, which may be why he acted as if Greer's list was accurate and sufficient when given to a lawyer with PACER access.

As an exercise of putting yourself in the judges' shoes, can anyone point to such a clear outline provided by Hardin, that even a tard-shielder must admit shows a discovery failure? I'm going over the docket and nothing jumps out. ECF 232 and 238 are the motion to compel that just got denied, but I don't see any allegations within them that Russ provided an incomplete list, just demands about the deletions and things Russ said.

Spoiler: accidental shot calling

I hate to self quote, but when searching this thread to answer the above question, I realized I anticipated this exact thing before.

It's probably forthcoming, but I'm waiting for Hardin to file a detailed list of every court case Russ has been involved in, cross-referenced against the few Russ sent in his "litigation history document" on Jan 14th. It'll show the discrepancies between what Russ willingly discloses, and what the Defense was forced to discover on their own. I'm sure that'll be worth another sanction, once the production timeline completely runs out.

I swear that wasn't planned, I was looking for the other posts by Null and Useful_Mistake.

Hardin does complain about it to Greer in Exhibit G to ECF 219.



But he doesn't make this point in the Motion to Compel itself. This is how he describes that email.

Hardin then goes on to complain about the missing restraining order... but he doesn't complain that the litigation list itself is incomplete. I don't think he ever complains to the judge that it's incomplete. That is implied in the exhibit, but it's buried in the quoted response, not even the main email itself (which comes from Greer).

I'm not knocking Hardin, I think he's generally doing well. But it's become clear the two judges aren't going to sift the record with a fine-toothed comb, especially not to reach sane conclusions favorable to the defense. Kicking the retard is warranted (and fun), but the judges aren't joining in. So it's time to start treating the judges like they're treating the 10th Appeals Court, like idiots who need all the evidence plainly spelled out on the record so they can make boring, appeal-proof rulings.

Edit: minor paragraph cleanup

 

[Sneed Force One]

This thread is such a rollercoaster when it comes to minute ups and downs of an absurdly drawn out case. I love it.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

 

[obsdj]

Can't...breathe...

 

[mindlessobserver]

Hey look, Stabby was useful for the first time in his life!

 

[AnOminous]

Are we absolutely certain this magistrate doesn't have a Wormtongue whispering in his ear? Or that dealing with Greer is making the magistrate butthurt by reminding him that he too, is retarded?

I kind of am. Remember, a magistrate judge is not an Article III judge with lifetime tenure. This guy has an eight year term. Renewable, but many magistrate judges just want to get through that term and move into private practice with an incredibly respectable resume.

While I can't blame them for that, and maybe this guy is an idiot who wants to make his entire career being a magistrate judge, who knows, this guy has been in office since 2020. That's the year Russell Greer filed this bullshit lawsuit.

Late in 2021, the regrettably retired Judge Tena Campbell withdrew the recommendation to this jackass magistrate and threw out the case, with a very well reasoned opinion which was nevertheless thrown out by the Tenth Circuit with an incoherent, bizarre opinion that caused alarm from some legal scholars, as it literally threw decades of case law into the toilet because apparently, Kiwi Farms is bad man. Now, merely disclosing that you received a DMCA notification is somehow proof you are an infringer and encourage infringement.

In any event, this fucking clown has spent half his career in his first term as a magistrate judge FAILING to handle a very simple case, to the point this imbecilic case now has *595 FUCKING DOCKET ENTRIES*. Mostly consisting of things that apparently neither judge involved in the case has ever found the energy to read.

If these goddamn idiots had even bothered to read and then rule on these matters as they deserve, they would not have had to deal with the continual issuance of effluence into their docket.

 

[Swole McPole]

Can't...breathe...

Hardin's latest effort was a cracking read. Shame the judge/magistrate doesn't appreciate his work as much as we do.

 

[AnOminous]

View attachment 7085719

Thank God real judges are still in control of most of the federal judiciary.

Nuke Utah.

 

[obsdj]

In any event, this fucking clown has spent half his career in his first term as a magistrate judge FAILING to handle a very simple case, to the point this imbecilic case now has *595 FUCKING DOCKET ENTRIES*. Mostly consisting of things that apparently neither judge involved in the case has ever found the energy to read.

If these goddamn idiots had even bothered to read and then rule on these matters as they deserve, they would not have had to deal with the continual issuance of effluence into their docket.

But muh reversible error! I swear, reversible error has become the Voldemort of this case. Don't name it, but always live in fear of it.

At least Hardin does attempt in a footnote here to punt the Holy Tenth Circuit, now that a First Amended Complaint (which supersedes the original one entirely) has been filed.

I also thought it was interesting that Hardin is invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) specifically re: "screening" IFP complaints. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) includes:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
..... (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
..... (B) the action or appeal—
.......... (i) is frivolous or malicious;
.......... (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
.......... (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

He has already requested the court to review Greer's IFP status (and whether he's lying about his poverty) just yesterday (ECF 253). But he didn't mention 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in that filing.

Also also, I cannot help but note that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) says "the court shall dismiss the case at any time" if any of those determinations are made. Not "may." SHALL. It'd be cool to see Hardin point that little tidbit out.

 

[The Stranger]

Also also, I cannot help but note that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) says "the court shall dismiss the case at any time" if any of those determinations are made. Not "may." SHALL. It'd be cool to see Hardin point that little tidbit out.

But it's the court's discretion to determine if any of those are the case.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Thank God real judges are still in control of most of the federal judiciary.

Nuke Utah.

Hey fuck off, I live here

I feel u though, our courts are ass

 

[The Un-Clit]

Hardin is really taking the judge to task for assuming what Russhole says is true and points out the judge's duty to look at everything carefully before ruling. I don't blame him at all, I just hope the judge is wise enough to realize his mistakes and correct them this time instead of resenting Hardin for it and smacking down the motion out of pettyness.

 

[DavidS877]

PDF, OCR of 258
Yes, page 8 is gibberish, I've attached 258-1.pdf as a distinct file which appears to read ok.
Note, 36 pages, image view is long.

Spoiler: Images

 

[Kosher Dill]

Not "may." SHALL.

"Shall" is the shortest but funniest joke in the Lolsuit Judge Jokebook.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Big if true. I wish this had been argued more forcefully though. Even if it's a basic piece of legal groundwork, this court (district and appeals) has repeatedly shown it needs hand-holding, and will go half-retard for any excuse.



Hardin wasn't kidding, he really has established "defending Kiwi Farms" as a distinct legal specialty, complete with its own obscure case law and detailed nuances.

[snipping 7 cites to the current docket]

There it is. The silver lining to 6 months of tard-shielding: it gave Russ enough rope to plight sperg into multiple admissions that this isn't about copyright.

This feels like a proffered way to give the judges an early out from this case. But I don't know if they're inclined to accept it at this point.