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

[Useful_Mistake]

As I recall it was over the prosecutor making statements implying guilt due to Rittenhouse not talking to police after he was taken into custody or something to that effect. Whatever the specifics, it was over violation of a person's fifth amendment rights.

The prosecution tried to claim Rittenhouse was guilty for not taking a stand before the jury. The Judge, to put it lightly, did not like that.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I rember during the Rittenhouse trial the judge seemed to be ready to dismiss on a freedom-of speech issue where the prosecution implied speaking to the press was proof of a lie and a coverup on the defendent's part(?). He was really pissed. The judge then let decided to let the trial go and even resisted the temporarily hung jury a few days. He seemed to believe a jury trial verdict was superior to a procedural ruling.

No, that was over 5th amendment right to silence. Binger like an absolute tool made a cross examination question that went to the effect of "If you had nothing to hide, why did you refuse to answer questions". The judge absolutely lost his shit at that point because it was such an egregious overstep. The Rittenhouse trial is probably showed in law schools today as a way to explain how not to prosecute a criminal case. Binger was an utter tard. He tried to paint a baby faced boy as a stone cold killer, and played the heel of a slimy government hack out to aggrandize his career by any means necessary to the hilt.

 

[ForTheHoard]

I rember during the Rittenhouse trial the judge seemed to be ready to dismiss on a freedom-of speech issue where the prosecution implied speaking to the press was proof of a lie and a coverup on the defendent's part(?). He was really pissed. The judge then let decided to let the trial go and even resisted the temporarily hung jury a few days. He seemed to believe a jury trial verdict was superior to a procedural ruling.

This is likely redundant to many user's previous opinions, but I really do speculate that the courts here had the same philosophy and may have just wanted a quick and retarded bench trial to say, "No, you haven't been able to prove your case and you had your fair day in court."

Some users may see maliciousness in the courts favoring a poor innocent bullying victim but I am leaning towards them trying to do things with the "correct process" rather than the "just process". The defendent in this case is just a continuing victim of the court's procedural philosophy rather than a victim of specific hatred.

It's just that the Greer is so intellectually disabled (in that way where they can write well but have no common sense) and so cruel/spiteful in a stupid way that he can't even stop violently thrashing trying to hurt other people and himself in the process while the court is desperately trying to carry him to his own trial.

Funny as hell to see the "Vibe Shift" in the filings, though.

As I recall it was over the prosecutor making statements implying guilt due to Rittenhouse not talking to police after he was taken into custody or something to that effect. Whatever the specifics, it was over violation of a person's fifth amendment rights. Judges try to make sure that juries understand the importance of this, because there is a very natural inclination to believe that not testifying in your own defense or refusing to speak with law enforcement must be some clear sign of guilt. The prosecutor implying guilt over it is an affront to justice.

The judge reamed out the prosecutor over it and I think he still could have used it as an excuse to toss the verdict if it did come back guilty. It almost certainly would be used as a point of appeal and for a new trial. There was also some speculation that the prosecutor was doing it intentionally to get a mistrial since things were going poorly for them by that point in the case. Whether the judge saw it that way or not, I don't know. I think it was probably mooted in the mind of the jury since Rittenhouse did eventually take the stand.

In the end, it was the right call from the judge to keep the trial going. Dismissing the trial on a procedural ruling, especially before any verdict came in would not have allowed Rittenhouse the not guilty verdict that he deserved.

The prosecution tried to claim Rittenhouse was guilty for not taking a stand before the jury. The Judge, to put it lightly, did not like that.

No, that was over 5th amendment right to silence. Binger like an absolute tool made a cross examination question that went to the effect of "If you had nothing to hide, why did you refuse to answer questions". The judge absolutely lost his shit at that point because it was such an egregious overstep. The Rittenhouse trial is probably showed in law schools today as a way to explain how not to prosecute a criminal case. Binger was an utter tard. He tried to paint a baby faced boy as a stone cold killer, and played the heel of a slimy government hack out to aggrandize his career by any means necessary to the hilt.

I guess we all remember it differently. I thought Binger told the jury that Kyle remained silent up until his testimony so he could listen to all the other witnesses and use their testimony to make up a more believable lie. The judge dismissed the jury and lit Binger up. Everyone was calling the judge based for digging into Binger and Kraus, but the prosecution did 4-5 things that would have caused a mistrial and the judge didn't have the balls to do more than raise his voice a couple times. It's hard to blame him though. He had every camera in the country in his face and a mob of nigs in the street threatening the jurors through megaphones. He was going to let it go to the jury no matter what so he couldn't be held responsible by the mob.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I guess we all remember it differently. I thought Binger told the jury that Kyle remained silent up until his testimony so he could listen to all the other witnesses and use their testimony to make up a more believable lie. The judge dismissed the jury and lit Binger up. Everyone was calling the judge based for digging into Binger and Kraus, but the prosecution did 4-5 things that would have caused a mistrial and the judge didn't have the balls to do more than raise his voice a couple times. It's hard to blame him though. He had every camera in the country in his face and a mob of nigs in the street threatening the jurors through megaphones. He was going to let it go to the jury no matter what so he couldn't be held responsible by the mob.

There is a reason the US Constitution puts the Jury of random nobodies at the pinnacle of decision making on matters of life and death, and not judges. Something most every judge these days is ignoring.

 

[Bridgeburner]

Unlikely. If it gets to the hearing, the Judge will likely conclude by taking it all under advisement and issuing any rulings at some other date.

Seeing as ending it all before the hearing is the sane course of action, it's unlikely it will happen in this case,

 

[cromit]

Seeing as ending it all before the hearing is the sane course of action, it's unlikely it will happen in this case,

The judge ending it all, or Russell?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

The judge ending it all, or Russell?

Either outcome is acceptable.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Seeing as ending it all before the hearing is the sane course of action, it's unlikely it will happen in this case,

The judge has essentially scheduled what amounts to oral arguments. This is a matter of principle for the court. Once a date has been set for both sides to argue orally, it's not going to be canceled. Written briefs may pour in and will inform the hearing. But nothing will be decided until the oral arguments are over.

This isn't a written rule. It's simply a law of nature. Which is why the courts really don't like scheduling oral arguments. If everything stays neat and tidy on paper, then everything can be neatly dealt with on said paper. Oral arguments are messy. They can raise issues that are not academic. But they are also more profound because it's no longer a question of who is better at research. It's a question of who has the better argument.

So no. The May 6 hearing is going to happen. The court cannot do anything else. And Greer must present his arguments.

Also, I will refer the thread to the real nuke dropped in Hardins latest filing. Nobody has commented on it. It's in the subtext of the first page.

and that the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Greer
v. Moon, 83 F.4th 1283 (10th Cir. 2023) was erroneous.

Hardin did not just drop a thunderbolt on Greer here. He also just dropped one on the circuit appellate court too. It's a brazen move to tell a district Court Judge that, "yeah, your bosses are full of shit, and you need to take that into consideration".

 

[Napoleon III]

Nobody has commented on it

It jumped out at me too and I commented this:

I think this is a bad thing to say. Yeah it is true, but you are straight up insulting a higher court in a lower one. I think the odds of a lower court agreeing with that is quite small. Like the higher court has all kinds of ways to fuck with the lower court just because they feel like it.

Hardin did not just drop a thunderbolt on Greer here. He also just dropped one on the circuit appellate court too. It's a brazen move to tell a district Court Judge that, "yeah, your bosses are full of shit, and you need to take that into consideration".

Do you think Hardin had to file something saying that or could he have left that bit out? The only reason I can think to do so is if you have to or the 10th would now for whatever reason think their decision was erroneous.

Also I'll notice that it is very much different from the tactics Hardin usually utilizes. Hardin likes to play a strong defense while slowly backing the other lawyer into a corner. He usually only does brazen attacks when he either thinks he is 100 percent going to win or he has no other option.

Thank you again Napoleon III, you answered a question I had before I even asked it. I could see Hardin filing to dismiss the case with prejudice, Judge says "No, but hold my beer and watch this", dismisses the case without prejudice, Droop Maw thinks this means he gets a do over, then gets lectured on statutes.

Don't think that what I suggested necessarily has any connection to reality. I was right about the transfer to Florida being bad and that it could get transferred back to Utah. But I was wrong about the Utah Judges just needing a little time to figure out Russ is a retard.

Reading a Judge is a bit like trying to predict the future by dissecting the entrails of animals.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Also I'll notice that it is very much different from the tactics Hardin usually utilizes. Hardin likes to play a strong defense while slowly backing the other lawyer into a corner. He usually only does brazen attacks when he either thinks he is 100 percent going to win or he has no other option

Up to the point. This filing was all the cards on the table. He didn't just call the 10th circuit ruling erroneous. He also called the very concept of contributory copyright infringement reversible error.

What Hardin did is take the entire excruciatingly long fact pattern of this case and assemble it into its final configuration. To show the court the enormity of the horror they created. A case so flawed it has reversible error from the moment of its service and process phase, straight up to potentially reversing established case law in a way that could upset alot of apple carts.

All the while giving the court plenty of options to make it go away without ruffling too many feathers.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The court cannot do anything else

I mean, it literally can though. It retains the power to cancel its own hearings

Do you think Hardin had to file something saying that or could he have left that bit out? The only reason I can think to do so is if you have to or the 10th would now for whatever reason think their decision was erroneous.

If he wants to object, he has to object

 

[SCV]

In reality this is getting trashfered back to Florida, calling it now.

Why must you speak this into the world?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Why must you speak this into the world?

Maybe I just wanna see New Thin Josh™ in his fancy lawsuit suit.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I mean, it literally can though. It retains the power to cancel its own hearings

Sure, but i was speaking more rhetorically in the sense of the phrase "can do no else". It won't.

 

[CEO of Gay]

Maybe I just wanna see New Thin Josh™ in his fancy lawsuit suit.

Nah, if we're going to see New Thin Josh™ in his fancy lawsuit suit, a much better context would be him testifying before congress about debanking.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Potentially Criminal to cover Russ' case in half an hour

https://www.youtube.com/live/Pq8z7e8qnzU

 

[Kosher Dill]

Maybe I just wanna see New Thin Josh™ in his fancy lawsuit suit.

No way, I want him to show up looking like The Kingpin.