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

[Harvey Danger]

View attachment 7148000

I will laugh until I hurt something if Russ catches a sanction for non-responsiveness due to spending 2 months on his sanction for non-violation of SPO.

 

[Wahgonga]

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.

As well as the photos Russ posted a few months earlier of him going out to that very same location like it's some sort of pilgrimage.

 

[DHugo]

With each passing day, the District Judge's decision seems more and more wrong...
View attachment 7147731

I really hope Greer will not drop this, new poll idea tho:

 

[obsdj]

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

Meh, I expressed reservations yesterday about the wisdom of Hardin making new filings, especially 262, ahead of the Zoom hearing. The Magistrate is losing patience and it's my opinion that this is showing, especially given his terse order for this meeting, wherein very specific ECFs were mentioned to be addressed. There's a specific block of time set aside on that day for that specific purpose.

These judges aren't on our side, and we've seen how they can smack us down when they get pissed off at too many motions and exhibits and fuckery, and it doesn't matter that the delays "are the judge's own fault" because the judges get to decide how to proceed. Does anyone truly disagree with "Pissing off the judge isn't a good idea" as a basic statement for conducting a case? Hardin can't tell the judge "If you had just handled things better before now, none of this would be happening" because Hardin is not a retarded moron like Greer.

I then had a number of posters disagree with me, including several bizarre statements like the upcoming hearing is "a scheduling conference" (it's not), or that the judge might make "an omnibus ruling" after which "the opportunity is gone" to raise any additional issues (The hell? Why? The case would still be open, discovery wouldn't be complete, and might actually start over, and no actual trial would be in sight till probably next year at the earliest). People also suggested I thought "Hardin should do nothing, ever," which apparently is the "SO YOU'RE SAYING" deflection du jour.

I asked for clarification on why anybody thought ECF 262 was a good idea now, since it's merely a "supplemental authority" and not even a motion on ECF 213, a months-old item (also not a motion) that is not up for discussion at the forthcoming hearing. I asked why people think that Hardin HAS to bring it up before the hearing or else he'll NEVER be able to bring it up. I asked what an "omnibus ruling" of that sort (ending all future potential motions before the trial even starts!) would even look like, and if there were examples of such. There also seems to be a vague suggestion that this upcoming Zoom hearing is THE ONLY hearing that will be had, or could be had, or might ever be had for the rest of the case, so Hardin should throw any and everything he can possibly think of onto the docket NOW and bring it up at this hearing whether the judge likes it or not. Why?

I never got a response to those questions. All I get is "SO YOU'RE SAYING" and "Well when CAN he file, HUHHHHH?" and similar deflection and it's pretty embarrassing.

I still wonder: Why now? ECF 213 was well over two months ago (is it even timely to respond now?), and again it's not part of the scheduled meeting. It's not even a motion. Why not lay low and keep the docket clear until the hearing instead of raising the additional aggro, and then raise further issues afterwards once things like Greer's IFP status and the last round of sanctions are decided? Why do you think there can't or won't be yet another hearing down the road? It's a Greer case, of course there will be further hearings, why on earth do you think "logjamming" everything you can possibly think of into THIS ONE hearing that already has specific items laid out for handling is a good idea and not a bad idea?

If you don't have an answer, it's okay to say that. We are all here chewing and ruminating over the ins and outs of a legal case, after all.

 

[AnOminous]

I asked what an "omnibus ruling" of that sort (ending all future potential motions before the trial even starts!) would even look like, and if there were examples of such.

It's literally any ruling on a number of subjects. It's not some magic phrase. This is a hearing on a fuckton of pending motions, literally all the pending motions currently before the court. Any ruling after the hearing will be about all those motions. Quit throwing a retarded tantrum.

 

[obsdj]

It's literally any ruling on a number of subjects. It's not some magic phrase. This is a hearing on a fuckton of pending motions, literally all the pending motions currently before the court. Any ruling after the hearing will be about all those motions. Quit throwing a retarded tantrum.

You continually neglect to respond to the other part of that question, specifically why you think "the opportunity is gone" to raise any further issues after such a ruling. Those were your words. Why do you think that?

 

[Debbie Macomber]

This is just like when the judge in the Taylor Swift case explained to him how to serve Taylor Swift, in tiny tard words even a tard like Russhole should have been able to understand, and Russhole just ignored the judge and lost his case.

How is it that Russ properly served Taylor Swift the first time and then never again?

Also says he's a full time student, has he actually provided proof he's enrolled in any school now?

If he's in lawschool as he's claimed, you know he's pesting the professor for legal advice, asking him to "check" his filings for him before he submits

 

[AnOminous]

You continually neglect to respond to the other part of that question, specifically why you think "the opportunity is gone" to raise any further issues after such a ruling. Those were your words. Why do you think that?

Because I'm not obdurately retarded.

Also, how is the opportunity NOT gone to file something before a hearing about everything in the case when you file it AFTER that hearing?

Can you magically time travel and go back to before the hearing and reclaim the opportunity to file before the hearing after the hearing is over?

How is it that Russ properly served Taylor Swift the first time and then never again?

I honestly do not know. They may have just let the service issue slide and decided to get the suit dismissed with prejudice instead. That didn't mean the lawyer in that case, or any other lawyer associated with Swift, had agreed to deficient service in the future.

If he's in lawschool as he's claimed, you know he's pesting the professor for legal advice, asking him to "check" his filings for him before he submits

Has he actually claimed that? He's claimed to be a student of some sort, but has he specifically claimed law school? He couldn't even be admitted to a law school. He lacks a baccalaureate, the basic requirement.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Why not lay low and keep the docket clear until the hearing

I will answer my own question, then, since you failed to answer mine. The proper time to inform the court about fraud on it is not months after the fact, but when you become certain it happened. Mr. Hardin repeatedly tried to get that info from Russ, and gave him more than enough time to respond. If this is untimely, it won't get any more timely a few months later.

You continually neglect to respond to the other part of that question, specifically why you think "the opportunity is gone" to raise any further issues after such a ruling. Those were your words. Why do you think that?

An issue not raised is an issue waived.

and again it's not part of the scheduled meeting

It is literally quite relevant to numerious sanctions the hearing will be considering, particularly, among other things - Russ' motion to overturn a discovery sanction. That he is lying to the court (while dodging discovery (IIRC, Russ said he would provide the evidence after he talked with detectives)) is obviously relevant.

 

[Accept Only Substitutes]

Has he actually claimed that? He's claimed to be a student of some sort, but has he specifically claimed law school? He couldn't even be admitted to a law school. He lacks a baccalaureate, the basic requirement.

He has updated his LinkedIn to say he's got a bachelors in hospitality from u of Las Vegas. There's no graduation date, so I suspect he's still attending there, if he's not lying. He's also said he could go to law school for free because of his disability. Hopefully he washes out of law school hard, because I don't think the best education in the world will help his skills as a lolyer improve any. A Russ admitted to the bar is terrifying.

 

[obsdj]

Also, how is the opportunity NOT gone to file something before a hearing about everything in the case when you file it AFTER that hearing?

Can you magically time travel and go back to before the hearing and reclaim the opportunity to file before the hearing after the hearing is over?

You are making shit up again. This hearing is not "about everything in the case." It's about specific items. You ever-so-helpfully copied-and-pasted it yourself into the thread last night:

ORDER Setting ZOOM Hearing on Motion 228 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees and Memorandum in Support pursuant to ECF No. 218; 234 Defendant's MOTION for Sanctions and Memorandum in Support ; 243 MOTION to Reconsider re 227 Order on Motion for Short Form Discovery, Order on Motion to Expedite,, Memorandum Decision, MOTION to Set Aside; 245 Defendant's MOTION to Stay and Memorandum in Support seeking stay of further discovery pending service of First Amended Complaint on two new defendants and resolution of any dispositive motions; 251 MOTION for a Bonded Stay Pending Appeal Re ECF 230 and Memorandum in Support; 253 Defendant's MOTION Review In Forma Pauperis Status re 1 and Memorandum in Support ; 258 Defendant's MOTION TO SCREEN IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINT re 247 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support, : Motion hearing set for Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 1:00 pm before Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett VIA Zoom Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 3/13/25. (ksm) (Entered: 03/13/2025)

Those are the things the hearing is about. ECF 213 is not in there. Why are you acting like this hearing, the one that's upcoming in May, is the only hearing, the True Hearing, the End of All Hearings?

Does anybody have an actual legal explanation for why this specific hearing is the only possible hearing in which anything can be raised, now and forever in perpetuity throughout the universe, as AnOminous seems to think?

An issue not raised is an issue waived.

I know that is true, but isn't it true overall in a legal proceeding, as opposed to time-locked to a specific moment within the case? My whole thing, as I've said several times, isn't "Why" but "Why now." Are you, too, of the opinion that Hardin can only raise issues now, and won't be able to raise any issues after this one specific hearing? You said yourself just now that if "this is untimely, it won't get any more timely a few months later." So why now?

It is literally quite relevant to numerious sanctions the hearing will be considering, particularly, among other things - Russ' motion to overturn a discovery sanction. That he is lying to the court (while dodging discovery (IIRC, Russ said he would provide the evidence after he talked with detectives)) is obviously relevant.

Followup on 213 is obviously relevant to the case overall, I just don't see how it's relevant to this particular Zoom hearing's matters. If Hardin is allowed to tack further items onto the hearing outside of what the judge already said he wanted to deal with, cool beans I guess. But wouldn't that mean Greer would also be allowed to start raising his own extraneous matters at the same hearing outside of what was scheduled? How is the judge likely to respond to that (keeping in mind that Hardin cannot raise the "It's your own fault your honor" defense)?

Honestly, it seems like 262 was THE impetus for Greer to file his new improper sanction motion, which has spurred a whole new slew of motion practice, all of which (apparently!) will now be added on to the Magical May Hearing schedule, woohoo. The judge will be thrilled, and even if he is the opposite of thrilled "who the fuck cares" because carpe diem, we have to handle literally everything in the entire case now now now now now now now. Whee!

Anyway, Greer is retarded and I would not have sex with him.

 

[AnOminous]

You are making shit up again. This hearing is not "about everything in the case." It's about specific items. You ever-so-helpfully copied-and-pasted it yourself into the thread last night:

So which other pending motions are before the court that are not listed?

 

[obsdj]

So which other pending motions are before the court that are not listed?

Why does that even matter? The hearing is scheduled to handle the things that are listed. That's what the hearing is for: To handle those things, and not to handle other things. The case is going to keep going after this hearing is over. There'll be time -- sooooooo much time, you just watch -- for all sort of other fun things to come up. I am confident that there will be another hearing someday, which will be scheduled to handle other things than the things that this hearing was specifically scheduled to handle. I'm looking forward to it! I bet you are too! This is so much fun! For us, anyway.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

How COULD Russell's neglect be unique if he has "excusable neglect" every motion?

His only excuse is "I have a JOB you know!" or that he's studying, but how can that be unique if that will continue to be the circumstances everyday for the rest of the case?

 

[Allied-Mastercomputer]

The judge will be thrilled, and even if he is the opposite of thrilled "who the fuck cares" because carpe diem

Dude, I didn’t mean to buckbreak you this hard. Are you ok?

The judge can easily wrestle control of the situation whenever he wants, all he needs to do is bang the gavel. He can even state that these subjects will not be the topic of conversation at the hearing. But what’s important to Hardin is not the judges’ temperament (that ship sailed literal fucking years ago) but to do his damn job.

I know you’re looking out for Josh, but I think you should unclench your butthole just a little bit.

 

[AnOminous]

Why does that even matter?

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[obsdj]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

SO YOU'RE SAYING

 

[S.C.U.D.]

I love how "excusable neglect" has become like a totem to ward away evil for Russ, it reminds me of sovereign citizens who think if they say the magic words just right they'll avoid all legal consequences and responsibilities. It's Russ' version of "I was not driving I was traveling."

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I know that is true, but isn't it true overall in a legal proceeding, as opposed to time-locked to a specific moment within the case? My whole thing, as I've said several times, isn't "Why" but "Why now." Are you, too, of the opinion that Hardin can only raise issues now, and won't be able to raise any issues after this one specific hearing? You said yourself just now that if "this is untimely, it won't get any more timely a few months later." So why now?

It is within the court's power (even the Magistrate's) to consider an argument presented late, but before a hearing starts. It is not usually within the court's power to consider an argument not raised. If Mr. Hardin wants to argue during the hearing, for example, that Greer's complaint should be dismissed because of frivolity in it, and in his overall arguments to the court, he waives the right to bring the fraud at 213 up as an example or even in a list of examples. Likewise, if he wants to argue that Greer's motion for reconsideration should be denied due to everstill ongoing discovery abuse, he waives the right to that argument if he doesn't raise it at the hearing.

He may, indeed, be able to file separate motion for sanctions regarding the fraud at 213 at a later date (though, keep in mind, it is improper to delay. It is well understood that sanctions motions should be filed "as soon as practicable after discovery of a Rule 11 violation." Sullivan v. Hunt, 350 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2003), also Cummings v. General Motors Corporation, 365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004) "Although it is true Rule 11 imposes a duty on attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law prior to signing any pleading filed with the court, the Cummings do not explain why seven months were needed to conduct such an inquiry.", also Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90 (3d Cir. 1988) "We will henceforth require prompt action by a litigant whenever a Rule [11] violation appears."), but he would not be able to bring up any of the mentioned examples or arguments if the court ruled against him, and he had not raised the issue.

I just don't see how it's relevant to this particular Zoom hearing's matters.

I explained it in the paragraph you are replying to. We'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[StinkySnack]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

I tried telling everyone how smooth-brained @obsdj is a month ago...