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

[CEO of Gay]

Is he expected to be present, since he's back in the US? I hadn't even thought about that.

I would think that Hardin being present to represent Null would be sufficient. However, I would not be surprised if Null was also on the call, and had a chat open with Hardin on the side, so the two could coordinate on anything Null wanted Hardin to bring up.

 

[The Repeated Meme]

I remember before the last hearing someone posted a trick that lets you join the zoom meeting in the browser without having to download the desktop app. Anyone remember what it was?

You mean opening the link in a web browser? I'm not sure that's really a trick.
If you don't have the app there should be a link saying "Join in your browser"
You may have to click launch meeting a couple times before it pops up the Join in Browser link.

You can normally do this, but with zoom gov you have to use the mobile app or the desktop app, joining from your browser is not allowed. I know this because I tried doing that last time and had to use my phone instead.

I recommend joining from the mobile app and using headphones.

You're free to try joining using your web browser, though. Just make sure you also join on the zoom app in case it doesn't let you in; or you may miss the hearing.

Update: Upon further testing, you can in fact join from your browser.

 

[BoomerPrime]

Don't worry, the TOP KIWI MINDS will be taking notes. God help us all.

TOP.
KIWI.
MINDS.

At the very least I'm hoping we can all reach a consensus on what the stenographer-accepted interpretation of *drool* *slurp* *spray* will be in official transcripts. Like what's the shorthand going to be?

 

[Pat Fried Rice]

Punishment by catapult

No, I have thought of the ultimate punishment.

They'll have to eat out Yaniv, Keffals, and Liz Fong Jones's stinkditches, then blow Rekieta and Patrick, finally getting Grande and swift to suck Ruus his penis.

 

[DavidS877]

You can normally do this, but with zoom gov you have to use the mobile app or the desktop app, joining from your browser is not allowed. I know this because I tried doing that last time and had to use my phone instead.

I recommend joining from the mobile app and using headphones.

You're free to try joining using your web browser, though. Just make sure you also join on the zoom app in case it doesn't let you in; or you may miss the hearing.

I just clicked through the meeting for tomorrow and it gave me the link after clicking "Launch Meeting" a second time.

And if I click that link it asks for my name and looks like it would work.

We'll see tomorrow, but for best access everyone should have Zoom on a device even if they want to try the browser.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

I'm gonna be on a mountain in the middle of nowhere with one bar reception, so one of you NEET niggers or office faggots need to live post this. You can 'report' on everything going on.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Could you lot be patient and just wait for a hearing?

 

[HackerX]

an imbecilic Tenth Circuit ruling that disgraces the entire circuit, basically got Russhole to the point where he can lose abysmally, having wasted everyone's time and money for half a decade about nonsense.

Wait so is the 10th circuit based now?

Don't worry, the TOP KIWI MINDS will be taking notes. God help us all.

> Looks at notes
> See nigger repeated over 20 pages
"This guy has better handwriting than Josh"

 

[The Repeated Meme]

I just clicked through the meeting for tomorrow and it gave me the link after clicking "Launch Meeting" a second time.
View attachment 7322917
And if I click that link it asks for my name and looks like it would work.

We'll see tomorrow, but for best access everyone should have Zoom on a device even if they want to try the browser.

I should clarify: It will let you join, but once the meeting starts, it will not let you in. You're more than welcome to try and prove me wrong once the meeting starts, though.

Disregard, I suck cocks.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

Wait so is the 10th circuit based now?

No. As amusing as this has all been for us, it's been a massive waste of time and money. Greer does plenty of stupid things as is, so it's not as though we would be deprived of any chuckles if this had been tossed out years ago.

All of the judges responsible for that ruling should be assigned to a decade of hearing only cases where both defendant and plaintiff are sassy, pro se black women who hate each other only slight more than everything else in God's creation. Any attempts to dismiss the cases on obvious procedural grounds or otherwise thrown out will be overturned and add another month to the assignment.

 

[Not a bee]

Dumb question ahead-
How many people are allowed to join, and would the Judge take notice of the suspicious amount of people showing up? I don't know.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

ECF no. 279

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I literally LOL'd. I would suggest "Ghost of Steve Taylor" but, again poor taste.

Close enough:

 

[UncleTusky]

ECF no. 279
View attachment 7323216

To summarize:
* Shitlips still will not answer the obvious question of how and why he can conduct discovery when he did not oppose Mr. Hardin's motion to stay discovery
* Nor will he answer the question of why a 15-day turn around time is warranted given the plain wording of the civil rules specifying 30 days.
* Mushmouth openly admits the discovery request was an attempt to find and serve the Doe defendants. Despite Hardin questioning the timing, he only states the relevance (never mind that is not the proper purpose of discovery . . . )
* He is refusing to "go back and forth" with Mr. Hardin and will instead file a motion to get the information. The content, timing, etc. of such a motion is not clear.
* Both Gimpface and Hardin say nothing about how the request for production (or for that matter the alleged incoming motion) violates the stipulation.

 

[DavidS877]

279 ocr pdf image

Spoiler: Images

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

ECF no. 279
View attachment 7323216

After seeing a man shoot himself in the foot, then mag dump the rest of the rounds into said foot, I never thought I'd see him reload and proceed to shoot himself in the other foot... He continues to surprise me. I know it shouldn't, but it does.

 

[DavidS877]

Both Gimpface and Hardin say nothing about how the request for production (or for that matter the alleged incoming motion) violates the stipulation.

Isn't that what Hardin is saying right here?

Also, isn't a motion still the wrong thing to get information about these Does.

 

[UncleTusky]

Isn't that what Hardin is saying right here?

Yes it is, I stand corrected. I apologize for the mistake in my previous post.

 

[TurboNAS]

If I were Greer I’d be frustrated too. This Hardin jerk keeps quoting rules and timelines and old documents. That’s all in the past. Greer has moved on.

I’m sure tomorrow will go well once he has a chance to explain.

 

[The Repeated Meme]

Works on my machine™
View attachment 7323371

Spoiler: How To

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

1. Open zoomgov URL in your browser
2. It will start a zoom.exe download, then display a 'Launch Meeting' button
3. Ignore the download, click 'Launch Meeting'
4. The button doesn't work because zoom isn't installed, but
5. The magic browser link now appears near the bottom, 'Join from your browser'
View attachment 7323389
6. Enter name 'Observer', mute mic and camera.

I have already clarified in a previous post that joining from your browser is not the issue; when the meeting actually starts, it will NOT let you out of the waiting room unless you are using the zoom app. I wish I had taken a screenshot of the exact error I got but I think it said something along the lines of 'joining by browser is not supported for this type of meeting'. For some reason it doesn't tell you this until after the meeting has already started.

I'll post evidence of this tomorrow, after the meeting starts.

Dumb question ahead-
How many people are allowed to join, and would the Judge take notice of the suspicious amount of people showing up? I don't know.

50 is the maximum number of total participants, including the judge, clerk, parties, etc. The exact reason for this limitation is not known but it has been speculated that it has something to do with the government contract between zoom and the court*. The judge did not make any comments about the number of observers one way or the other at the lasting hearing, to my knowledge; but he is keenly aware that there's significant public interest in this case.

*I may be completely wrong here, I don't know this for sure, but this is my understanding so take this with a grain of salt.

If 50 really is the hard limit, I recommend joining as early as you can to secure yourself a spot.

Update: There does not appear to be a limit to the number of participants, and you can join from your browser.