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

[obsdj]

If Ratmouth wasn't pro se, he would be sanctioned again for this failure too.

Being pro se doesn't shield you from sanctions, though being this particular pro se retard sure seems like it does. In fact, Hardin's motion for extension of time that he just filed today (ECF 265) is specifically for the purpose of getting a cross-motion for sanctions on Greer for this specific thing (Greer's improperly-filed sanction motion at ECF 263). But Hardin has to follow the rules for doing so, plus there's that damn Zoom hearing getting in the way of everything. Le sigh!

 

[Post Reply]

I think what's also funny is that Russ's proposed monetary sanction does not make anything whole, even if there was any validity to his claim.

Nonsense, those two thousand dollars will serve to make Russell whole for the grievous harm he suffered when he was called a "big dummy" in an anonymous email.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

plus there's that damn Zoom hearing getting in the way of everything.

No it isn't. Mr. Hardin's request and the date of the hearing do not overlap.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Pro se individuals are entirely subject to sanctions, even ones for failing to follow court rules.

I know, but I pretty much assume from previous behavior that the judge will let it slide.

I hope I am wrong, but with the other sanctionable actions Russhole is already on the hook for, my gut tells me on this one he'll just get chewed out and the motion denied.

 

[and six goriilion others]

Nonsense, those two thousand dollars will serve to make Russell whole for the grievous harm he suffered when he was called a "big dummy" in an anonymous email.
View attachment 7147759

Exhibit D actually does not display somebody calling Greer a "big dummy" by the way. I don't know how, but he always messes up at least 1 exhibit. I think I even saw that mail in an earlier filing, so it's not like he doesn't have it.

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

Excusable neglect again Russ? Come on.

 

[AnOminous]

Pro se individuals are entirely subject to sanctions, even ones for failing to follow court rules.

True, and they're obligated to be aware of them, but they're often cut excessive slack for innocent fuckups, despite "inadvertent" errors being sanctionable in theory.

In this case, though, Russhole was explicitly told the exact rule and what it required, and literally within hours of that, deliberately violated it. He has no innocence defense.

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

Nonsense, those two thousand dollars will serve to make Russell whole for the grievous harm he suffered when he was called a "big dummy" in an anonymous email.
View attachment 7147759

It pleases me that someone is reading my posts. It pleases me far less that someone allegedly* quoted me in an email to the cow (DON'T TIP THE COWS).

Too bad for ol' Russ that he's ABD (A Big Dummy).

* Almost certainly didn't happen, and that the certain "someone" may well have been Russ himself, but still.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Just so we're clear here, Russell has done the following:

• Ignored the judge's orders and claimed ignorance of the orders
• Ignored the SPO and claimed ignorance of the SPO
• Tampered with his witnesses and claimed ignorance of what a deposition is
• Violated multiple rules multiple times and claimed ignorance of the rules
• Sanctioned Hardin without giving him a 21 day notice; his claim of ignorance is all but guaranteed
• And he has done all of the above after being given very explicit instructions on how they work- while claiming ignorance of the instructions

At what point can Hardin claim Russell is too mentally incompetent to prosecute the case? There's no way the judge will accept that his pet retard is being actively malicious but maybe he'll accept Russ is too retarded to continue.

Edit: it just occurred to me Russell's retard mind might've reached the conclusion that claiming ignorance means he can safely ignore anything to court says and continue filing his tantrums.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Excusable neglect again Russ? Come on.

Someone less lazy than me should go make a timeline of all the times the court already excused his neglect.

 

[a hapless toad]

"In Pioneer the Supreme Court said that "inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not usually constitute 'excusable' neglect." Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489.

Even after Pioneer adopted an equitable, balancing test, several circuits have embraced the rule that "'[t]he excusable neglect standard can never be met by a showing of inability or refusal to read and comprehend the plain language of the federal rules.' " Weinstock v. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, 16 F.3d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Cosmopolitan Aviation Corp., 763 F.2d 507, 515 (2d Cir. 1985)); accord Prizevoits v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 76 F.3d 132, 133 (7th Cir. 1996); see Lowry, 211 F.3d at 464. . .

In our view, defense counsel's misinterpretation of a readily accessible, unambiguous rule cannot be grounds for relief unless "[t]he word 'excusable' [is to be] read out of the rule." Prizevoits, 76 F.3d at 134."

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-torres

(And it goes without saying that being too busy is also not excusable neglect, especially when you're the goddamn plaintiff.)

 

[obsdj]

Edit: it just occurred to me Russell's retard mind might've reached the conclusion that claiming ignorance means he can safely ignore anything to court says and continue filing his tantrums.

Ah yes, the Greased-Up Deaf Guy defense.

 

[Harvey Danger]

No it isn't. Mr. Hardin's request and the date of the hearing do not overlap.

I was kind of surprised Hardin didn't request to have this disposed of during the hearing. He's got to email Russ 21 days ahead of a cross-motion, warranting the extension of time. But he didn't explicitly request for this to be handled at the already-scheduled pileup that will handle the other sanctions. Hardin seems to have done most of the work already in 265, arguing it in person should be trivial.

Is that something a party can normally request, to add an agenda item to a judge's hearing? I assume you can do a Motion To Ask For Whatever, and a judge can accept or reject it at their discretion.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

 

[obsdj]

But he didn't explicitly request for this to be handled at the already-scheduled pileup that will handle the other sanctions. Hardin seems to have done most of the work already in 265, arguing it in person should be trivial.

Is that something a party can normally request, to add an agenda item to a judge's hearing? I assume you can do a Motion To Ask For Whatever, and a judge can accept or reject it at their discretion.

Certain people in this thread certainly seem to hold the opinion that simply filing more motions means you can bring those items up at an already-scheduled hearing wherein the judge has laid out specific items he wants to address. But hey, time is fungible and this hearing will be the final opportunity to mention literally anything, right?

 

[Harvey Danger]

With respect to deadline which have already elapsed, Defendants Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC respectfully submit that Mr. Greer has demonstrated only his ongoing and ordinary neglect of this case, but has not shown any excusable neglect within the meaning of the applicable standard.

You can feel the satisfaction Hardin felt crafting that one.

Edit: he's perfecting his passive aggressive voice.

 

[obsdj]

SPLOOSH.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Certain people in this thread certainly seem to hold the opinion that simply filing more motions means you can bring those items up at an already-scheduled hearing wherein the judge has laid out specific items he wants to address. But hey, time is fungible and this hearing will be the final opportunity to mention literally anything, right?

When is the appropriate time to give notice to the court that fraud is being committed upon it and upon the defense?

 

[AnOminous]

Hardin seems to have done most of the work already in 265, arguing it in person should be trivial.

And this is why, while it sometimes seems excessive, material like this should be filed as soon as possible. This is not one of those things where it sometimes pays to pull the "file at the absolute last moment" trick usually used when there is a deadline to respond to something.

The point is at the time of the hearing, the judge should be entirely aware of all the facts and arguments being presented, having had a giant pile of paper for he and his clerks to ruminate over for as long as possible, and the hearing is just an opportunity to probe any issues the judge is uncertain about, or quite often, just a kabuki dance to summarize everything so the judge can then rule on it, after "taking it under advisement." (Or if he's Judge Chupp, making a completely idiotic ruling straight from the bench without even thinking about it.)

Is that something a party can normally request, to add an agenda item to a judge's hearing? I assume you can do a Motion To Ask For Whatever, and a judge can accept or reject it at their discretion.

Not for a Rule 11 motion. There are very strict rules on how and when those can be brought.

Pretty much anything else, yeah. If you have a giant logjam-breaking hearing coming up with every issue in the case in it, the judge is not going to like it if, for some brain-dead reason, you decide to wait until after that's over to dole him out another ration of shit.

 

[Dr. Henry Armitage]

It’s too bad Hardin didn’t or couldn’t use the video Russ posted where he drove out to the former site of a brothel and swore to avenge Dennis Hoff because his brothel was torn down. As an example of what Russ does in his free time instead of responding to motions.