- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Now every day is a sanction to Greer.
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
What the fuck are you rabbiting on about?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2024
So he just pays 400 bucks and can file freely again?
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
Russhole recieves trauma lumps.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
Dumping my notes, apologies for the missing sections and scruffy phrasing. Very pleased to hear the IFP issue finally getting resolved.
Highlights:
Observers warned to keep camera/mics off
Greer present
Hardin present
Covering motions in 5 categories,
ECF228 sanctions, acknowledged ECF230 lowering fees to 1000 making this moot
greer asking for reconsideration/stay on these fees, addressed later
ECF243 greer motion, discussing sanctions under rule 37 for discovery motion to compel
state court restraining order denial
greer instead filed a different motion under rule 60b to have previous ruling set aside
Judge explaining 60b is about setting aside the final judgement in the case, not relevant to the discovery (interlocutory)
“going to liberally construe 243” based on the representations of the motion, trying to find the restraining order for Hardin
Kill “nick Vlahos” for fucking around in the call
Hardin clarifies that his motion was filed before judge barlow made his decision, acknowledges that this judge cannot override it, smooth operator on both sides
For ECF227, given factual representations/nature of document/already fined for failure to disclose, fees under 37a5 would be unjust
Hardin says: facts of underlying request are incorrect
greer said when he got the request, he had a restraining order on moon, says “I am happy to provide it”
greer interjects and says I didn’t say this
hardin says “it’s cited in the motion” and says he has a copy of an order from a Utah court saying the restraining order was denied, relevant here as greer has represented the existence of the restraining order and has not backed this up; duplicitous claims, underlying allegations here are important
“he did not send me anything at all including this denial, that came from a third party”, all that greer sent was a public records request *denial* triggered by a third party that neither hardin or greer recognise (jim jorton?) hardin used this to find the case number and relevant information, wants to make it clear that there is no restraining/protective order and restates that greer has not complied with the motion to compel, requests the court force him to compel or award attorney fees for wasting time
greer says he told hardin on the phone that he does not have access to the documents, says that after the call “jim jorton” showed up and greer says he believes someone was listening into the phone call between himself and hardin
greer forwarded the jim jorton bit to hardin and considered this partially fulfilling the order
“I never said I had a restraining order on him” – I thought greer said exactly this in an earlier filing?
judge asks greer why he doesn’t have access to his own court records
greer says “I have limited storage on my phone”, deletes documents, does not know how to retrieve old documents, asked if he has to file a request to the district court
says after he spoke to hardin, the third party “jim jorton” tried acquiring the document and he forwarded it to hardin, thought that was it, says to his knowledge he never had any other emails relating to this
judge says doesn’t sound like you did much to find it, it’s your court file, you can ask the court and they should get it from the archives from you, concerned that he didn’t even try
also says he’s not sure why greer did not do this
Greer says he thought hardin was getting the document himself
judge says hardin filed a motion to compel
greer says that was the document he forgot to reply to (?) asked for reconsideration
judge says the issue is that greer said hardin did not give greer notice that he could not access the record, but the motion to compel from hardin makes this fairly clear
greer says “the court order really has no relevance to this case” something and that’s why he never provided it
judge says by not responding to the motion you cannot argue that it isn’t relevant, judge ordered him to produce it, rule 60b filed to reconsider does not address relevance, months too late for objections here
judge was under the impression that greer had either done or was doing (acquiring the documents) and now realises that he hasn’t really looked into it at all
ordered within the next FOURTEEN DAYS to get a copy of that case file from the court where it was filed and provide it to Hardin, marked
judge says“if this shows up on a website there will be contempt sanctions on whoever puts it there”, "Some things find themselves on Kiwi Farms" – threatened with marshals, so for the love of god don’t do it
Hardin says “we are not agreeing to the facts greer stated”
judge says he doesn’t need to for this to move forward but greer does need to provide the documents, says it’s more than just attorney fees that need to be considered if they are not provided, rule 37b sanctions in terms of case termination for failure to co-operate in discovery
Violating standard protection order “even though mr greer had not read it, apparently”
greer witnesses including father + recently deceased, later stated “no relevant information” from these witnesses despite “eager to testify”, passed away several months ago
hardin agrees this is an accurate assessment, tied into withdrawn motion about adverse inference re: mr taylor, had not spoken to mr taylor since 2021, representation made in 2024 re: eager to testify after mr taylor’s death
Greer says he’s listed every person he’s talked to, people who will testify, admits he should have checked that mr taylor was still interested and still alive before doing so
hardin says greer did not respond to this argument, admitted no due diligence before making this representation, standard under rule 11 is objective, objectively unreasonable to say someone is eager to testify if you haven’t talked to them for three years and they’ve been dead for five months
Hardin discussing Utah -> florida -> Utah transfer, witnesses in Utah used as lever to force case transfer, hardin issued subpoenas at expense before greer then said father/brother had no relevant testimony, screwing it
also said other witnesses in Utah, then turned out there were no witnesses in Utah
hardin looking for steve taylor is what led to hardin filing a motion for adverse interference re: mr taylor because he thought greer was hiding them, greer said he’d had a falling out and thought he could choose not to disclose because of that, hardin said he’d much rather talk to someone who had a failing out with mr greer than someone on his team, fails to track him down and files a motion for adverse interference, greer says “he’s dead”, hardin spends several months chasing this while greer changes his mind, prejudicial to the legal system having it bouncing between courts
This platiniff just files things; doesn’t think about it, doesn’t research it, just pops off at the mouth/pen and then just files it
Greer says hardin will latch onto individual words instead of the whole phrase, says null is not in florida (relevant to jurisdiction?) how can he collect anything from him if he’s living overseas? Hardin has not said if he’s in florida or not, cuts into the prejudice argument
re: steve taylor, says he misspoke, listed every person he has talked to as a witness, was unaware he was dead, says father/brother both said they would testify but after it was transferred back to Utah he talked to them again and they said they had nothing to offer, told his brother “you made me look like a liar now”, says hardin is lathcing onto steve taylor
Judge says taking rule 11 motion under advisement, will issue an order later
2 parts to rule 11 analysis, violation of rule 11b (adequate investigation) and then what do we do about it, series of factors considered before imposing sanction, considering now
hardin says it’s a tough question, briefing asks for appropriate sanctions, at a minimum should be attorneys fees for steve taylor + protective order but says it does not “unring the bell” – prejudice is more extensive, back in Utah even though null resides in Florida, says case has been on a bad trajectory as a result of this misconduct, says sanctions should be terminating the case as the judicial system has been so badly misused
greer says he has written evidence that moon is living overseas, says null needs to provide evidence of living in florida, says he’s been sending law enforcement to try and track him down, “I can’t do anything because I don’t know where he lives” re: the case not being in Utah, says he was living in Utah at the time so it’s the appropriate venue for determining damages, “have messed up on a few stuff”, I have photographs of Joshua posting my copyright online, there’s something seriously wrong with his person and the court needs to do something to stop his conduct
Judge says he understands his POV but it has to be done according to the law, trying to determine justification; doesn’t need to be perfect, room for mistakes, but representations cannot be made recklessly, people spent time/money evaluating untrue representations and that’s what’s being addressed in rule 11, says it’s taken under advisement and will look at both prongs of rule 11
Third category: motion to stay, ECF245, stay discovery until everyone is served (two john does?)
granted motion to stay, but instead of “everybody is served” it’s “until the court has a chance to review the motion to dismiss filed a few weeks ago”, more productive
Hardin says “yep that was one of our alternative grounds, neither of these people “russtard” or “joseph motelli” have been disclosed as having any discoverable information, any attempt for discovery re: them is misplaced because of this
Greer says trying to find addresses for this (missed most of this, sorry)
Hardin says greer says was disclosing overzealously, out the yinyang, everyone he’s ever spoken to – now greer says he DIDN’T disclose these two does despite that, says it’s wildly inappropriate, confessing in an open court to a rule 26 violation
judge says take a step back, it’s fine to add parties
hardin agrees but says rule26a requires him to say who has discoverable information in the case, did not specify these two, no additional information provided re: these two people but suddenly says he needs information on them, greer says it’s to serve an amended complaint but they OR NULL have never been stated to have discoverable information before, now asking null for info on the other two, all three – consider underlying failure to disclose, greer has boxed himself in, motion to dismiss from hardin says statute of infringement for copyright infringement has expired years ago, says trying to change the narrative now is inappropriate, says the temporary stay is some relief
judge says there’s no renewed motion for 26a violations, needs to address broader point, rule 26e, disclosures not required in 26a when information is already known to the other side – relevant for Null because this is assumed as the named defendant
Hardin clarifies it’s just a motion to stay discovery, will see a renewed motion re: oral statements in court and can be addressed later, does not need to be discussed now, judge says “fair enough”
Motion to stay granted, until motions to dismiss decided
ECF251 relating to stay, asking under rule 62b for a bonded stay; provides at any time after judgement a party may obtain a bond/other security while something is appealed – judgement refers to final judgement, end of case, bond is related to the appeal of the entire case not an interlocutory discovery sanction order – rule 62b does not apply here
however because this is an interlocutory order, he can ask judge barlow to stay the $1k, bennett cannot stay a district judge (barlow)’s order so it’s not relevant, bennett cannot rule on ECF251, denied under rule62b as not applicable, greer has the right to ask judge barlow for whatever needs to be stayed, greer says he understands
ECF253 + ECF258 IFP filing, 258 asking for a rescreening of the amended complaint, alternative motion if greer is able to pay his filing fee there’d be no magistrate judge review and would proceed normally – judge says ECF258 is only applicable if the court finds IFP is still applicable, hardin says he agrees entirely
ECF253 – greer says he is able but unwilling, capable, to pay the $1k, hardin argues this means he can pay the $400 filing fee, judge asks greer if he can pay the $400 filing fee
Greer says he can pay it, derails into “hardin focuses on little things, don’t see how IFP/not IFP has any relevance to copyright infringement” confirms again that yes, he can pay it
Judge explains basics of IFP, says it’s beyond relevance to copyright infringement – if you can pay the filing fee I will order you to pay it within 30 days or I will have to dismiss this case
asks greer if he can pay the filing fee and maintain his support, greer doesn’t reply for 10 seconds, asks for clarification; “are you able to continue to pay for your rent, other life expenses, despite paying”? greer says yes???
says ECF258 is functionally moot
stayed discovery until motion to dismiss, one exception, 14 days to produce documents for ECF227
hardin is going to file a status report to inform the judge within 21 days re: this
Discovery will go forward, everything else will be stayed
rule 11 under advisement, written decision when able
Await briefing on motion to dismiss
IFP revoked, 30 days to pay filing fee for Greer
ECF258 moot either way, case dismissed under IFP status or magistrate judge no longer reviewed
ECFsomething granted until discovery stay something
ECF251 denied without prejudice, rule 62b inapplicable
ECF228 is moot because it’s judge barlow, ECF243 remaining open re: status report, potential future proceedings, underlying case file on denied hearing
hardin says nothing else from him
greer says nothing
Greer present
Hardin present
Covering motions in 5 categories,
ECF228 sanctions, acknowledged ECF230 lowering fees to 1000 making this moot
greer asking for reconsideration/stay on these fees, addressed later
ECF243 greer motion, discussing sanctions under rule 37 for discovery motion to compel
state court restraining order denial
greer instead filed a different motion under rule 60b to have previous ruling set aside
Judge explaining 60b is about setting aside the final judgement in the case, not relevant to the discovery (interlocutory)
“going to liberally construe 243” based on the representations of the motion, trying to find the restraining order for Hardin
Kill “nick Vlahos” for fucking around in the call
Hardin clarifies that his motion was filed before judge barlow made his decision, acknowledges that this judge cannot override it, smooth operator on both sides
For ECF227, given factual representations/nature of document/already fined for failure to disclose, fees under 37a5 would be unjust
Hardin says: facts of underlying request are incorrect
greer said when he got the request, he had a restraining order on moon, says “I am happy to provide it”
greer interjects and says I didn’t say this
hardin says “it’s cited in the motion” and says he has a copy of an order from a Utah court saying the restraining order was denied, relevant here as greer has represented the existence of the restraining order and has not backed this up; duplicitous claims, underlying allegations here are important
“he did not send me anything at all including this denial, that came from a third party”, all that greer sent was a public records request *denial* triggered by a third party that neither hardin or greer recognise (jim jorton?) hardin used this to find the case number and relevant information, wants to make it clear that there is no restraining/protective order and restates that greer has not complied with the motion to compel, requests the court force him to compel or award attorney fees for wasting time
greer says he told hardin on the phone that he does not have access to the documents, says that after the call “jim jorton” showed up and greer says he believes someone was listening into the phone call between himself and hardin
greer forwarded the jim jorton bit to hardin and considered this partially fulfilling the order
“I never said I had a restraining order on him” – I thought greer said exactly this in an earlier filing?
judge asks greer why he doesn’t have access to his own court records
greer says “I have limited storage on my phone”, deletes documents, does not know how to retrieve old documents, asked if he has to file a request to the district court
says after he spoke to hardin, the third party “jim jorton” tried acquiring the document and he forwarded it to hardin, thought that was it, says to his knowledge he never had any other emails relating to this
judge says doesn’t sound like you did much to find it, it’s your court file, you can ask the court and they should get it from the archives from you, concerned that he didn’t even try
also says he’s not sure why greer did not do this
Greer says he thought hardin was getting the document himself
judge says hardin filed a motion to compel
greer says that was the document he forgot to reply to (?) asked for reconsideration
judge says the issue is that greer said hardin did not give greer notice that he could not access the record, but the motion to compel from hardin makes this fairly clear
greer says “the court order really has no relevance to this case” something and that’s why he never provided it
judge says by not responding to the motion you cannot argue that it isn’t relevant, judge ordered him to produce it, rule 60b filed to reconsider does not address relevance, months too late for objections here
judge was under the impression that greer had either done or was doing (acquiring the documents) and now realises that he hasn’t really looked into it at all
ordered within the next FOURTEEN DAYS to get a copy of that case file from the court where it was filed and provide it to Hardin, marked
judge says“if this shows up on a website there will be contempt sanctions on whoever puts it there”, "Some things find themselves on Kiwi Farms" – threatened with marshals, so for the love of god don’t do it
Hardin says “we are not agreeing to the facts greer stated”
judge says he doesn’t need to for this to move forward but greer does need to provide the documents, says it’s more than just attorney fees that need to be considered if they are not provided, rule 37b sanctions in terms of case termination for failure to co-operate in discovery
Violating standard protection order “even though mr greer had not read it, apparently”
greer witnesses including father + recently deceased, later stated “no relevant information” from these witnesses despite “eager to testify”, passed away several months ago
hardin agrees this is an accurate assessment, tied into withdrawn motion about adverse inference re: mr taylor, had not spoken to mr taylor since 2021, representation made in 2024 re: eager to testify after mr taylor’s death
Greer says he’s listed every person he’s talked to, people who will testify, admits he should have checked that mr taylor was still interested and still alive before doing so
hardin says greer did not respond to this argument, admitted no due diligence before making this representation, standard under rule 11 is objective, objectively unreasonable to say someone is eager to testify if you haven’t talked to them for three years and they’ve been dead for five months
Hardin discussing Utah -> florida -> Utah transfer, witnesses in Utah used as lever to force case transfer, hardin issued subpoenas at expense before greer then said father/brother had no relevant testimony, screwing it
also said other witnesses in Utah, then turned out there were no witnesses in Utah
hardin looking for steve taylor is what led to hardin filing a motion for adverse interference re: mr taylor because he thought greer was hiding them, greer said he’d had a falling out and thought he could choose not to disclose because of that, hardin said he’d much rather talk to someone who had a failing out with mr greer than someone on his team, fails to track him down and files a motion for adverse interference, greer says “he’s dead”, hardin spends several months chasing this while greer changes his mind, prejudicial to the legal system having it bouncing between courts
This platiniff just files things; doesn’t think about it, doesn’t research it, just pops off at the mouth/pen and then just files it
Greer says hardin will latch onto individual words instead of the whole phrase, says null is not in florida (relevant to jurisdiction?) how can he collect anything from him if he’s living overseas? Hardin has not said if he’s in florida or not, cuts into the prejudice argument
re: steve taylor, says he misspoke, listed every person he has talked to as a witness, was unaware he was dead, says father/brother both said they would testify but after it was transferred back to Utah he talked to them again and they said they had nothing to offer, told his brother “you made me look like a liar now”, says hardin is lathcing onto steve taylor
Judge says taking rule 11 motion under advisement, will issue an order later
2 parts to rule 11 analysis, violation of rule 11b (adequate investigation) and then what do we do about it, series of factors considered before imposing sanction, considering now
hardin says it’s a tough question, briefing asks for appropriate sanctions, at a minimum should be attorneys fees for steve taylor + protective order but says it does not “unring the bell” – prejudice is more extensive, back in Utah even though null resides in Florida, says case has been on a bad trajectory as a result of this misconduct, says sanctions should be terminating the case as the judicial system has been so badly misused
greer says he has written evidence that moon is living overseas, says null needs to provide evidence of living in florida, says he’s been sending law enforcement to try and track him down, “I can’t do anything because I don’t know where he lives” re: the case not being in Utah, says he was living in Utah at the time so it’s the appropriate venue for determining damages, “have messed up on a few stuff”, I have photographs of Joshua posting my copyright online, there’s something seriously wrong with his person and the court needs to do something to stop his conduct
Judge says he understands his POV but it has to be done according to the law, trying to determine justification; doesn’t need to be perfect, room for mistakes, but representations cannot be made recklessly, people spent time/money evaluating untrue representations and that’s what’s being addressed in rule 11, says it’s taken under advisement and will look at both prongs of rule 11
Third category: motion to stay, ECF245, stay discovery until everyone is served (two john does?)
granted motion to stay, but instead of “everybody is served” it’s “until the court has a chance to review the motion to dismiss filed a few weeks ago”, more productive
Hardin says “yep that was one of our alternative grounds, neither of these people “russtard” or “joseph motelli” have been disclosed as having any discoverable information, any attempt for discovery re: them is misplaced because of this
Greer says trying to find addresses for this (missed most of this, sorry)
Hardin says greer says was disclosing overzealously, out the yinyang, everyone he’s ever spoken to – now greer says he DIDN’T disclose these two does despite that, says it’s wildly inappropriate, confessing in an open court to a rule 26 violation
judge says take a step back, it’s fine to add parties
hardin agrees but says rule26a requires him to say who has discoverable information in the case, did not specify these two, no additional information provided re: these two people but suddenly says he needs information on them, greer says it’s to serve an amended complaint but they OR NULL have never been stated to have discoverable information before, now asking null for info on the other two, all three – consider underlying failure to disclose, greer has boxed himself in, motion to dismiss from hardin says statute of infringement for copyright infringement has expired years ago, says trying to change the narrative now is inappropriate, says the temporary stay is some relief
judge says there’s no renewed motion for 26a violations, needs to address broader point, rule 26e, disclosures not required in 26a when information is already known to the other side – relevant for Null because this is assumed as the named defendant
Hardin clarifies it’s just a motion to stay discovery, will see a renewed motion re: oral statements in court and can be addressed later, does not need to be discussed now, judge says “fair enough”
Motion to stay granted, until motions to dismiss decided
ECF251 relating to stay, asking under rule 62b for a bonded stay; provides at any time after judgement a party may obtain a bond/other security while something is appealed – judgement refers to final judgement, end of case, bond is related to the appeal of the entire case not an interlocutory discovery sanction order – rule 62b does not apply here
however because this is an interlocutory order, he can ask judge barlow to stay the $1k, bennett cannot stay a district judge (barlow)’s order so it’s not relevant, bennett cannot rule on ECF251, denied under rule62b as not applicable, greer has the right to ask judge barlow for whatever needs to be stayed, greer says he understands
ECF253 + ECF258 IFP filing, 258 asking for a rescreening of the amended complaint, alternative motion if greer is able to pay his filing fee there’d be no magistrate judge review and would proceed normally – judge says ECF258 is only applicable if the court finds IFP is still applicable, hardin says he agrees entirely
ECF253 – greer says he is able but unwilling, capable, to pay the $1k, hardin argues this means he can pay the $400 filing fee, judge asks greer if he can pay the $400 filing fee
Greer says he can pay it, derails into “hardin focuses on little things, don’t see how IFP/not IFP has any relevance to copyright infringement” confirms again that yes, he can pay it
Judge explains basics of IFP, says it’s beyond relevance to copyright infringement – if you can pay the filing fee I will order you to pay it within 30 days or I will have to dismiss this case
asks greer if he can pay the filing fee and maintain his support, greer doesn’t reply for 10 seconds, asks for clarification; “are you able to continue to pay for your rent, other life expenses, despite paying”? greer says yes???
says ECF258 is functionally moot
stayed discovery until motion to dismiss, one exception, 14 days to produce documents for ECF227
hardin is going to file a status report to inform the judge within 21 days re: this
Discovery will go forward, everything else will be stayed
rule 11 under advisement, written decision when able
Await briefing on motion to dismiss
IFP revoked, 30 days to pay filing fee for Greer
ECF258 moot either way, case dismissed under IFP status or magistrate judge no longer reviewed
ECFsomething granted until discovery stay something
ECF251 denied without prejudice, rule 62b inapplicable
ECF228 is moot because it’s judge barlow, ECF243 remaining open re: status report, potential future proceedings, underlying case file on denied hearing
hardin says nothing else from him
greer says nothing
Highlights:
- Stayed discovery until motion to dismiss, one exception, 14 days to produce documents for ECF227, Hardin is going to file a status report to inform the judge within 21 days re: this
- Discovery will go forward, everything else will be stayed
- Rule 11 under advisement, written decision from Bennett when able
- Await briefing on motion to dismiss
- IFP revoked, 30 days to pay filing fee for Greer (only in this case, supposedly? unsure)
- ECF258 moot either way, case dismissed under IFP status or magistrate judge no longer reviewed
- ECFsomething granted until discovery stay something
- ECF251 denied without prejudice, rule 62b inapplicable
- ECF228 is moot because it’s judge barlow, ECF243 remaining open re: status report, potential future proceedings, underlying case file on denied hearing
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Excerpts in short hand. Missed the first minute because my audio wouldn't work.
Edited some of the notes for spelling errors
About failure to produce the restraining order against JCM
JCB: number one you didn't even try to get the restraining order files from the court, they will provided them if you ask, it is your case. Why haven't you?
RG: because Hardin could just get it, he never said he couldn't.
JCB: But Mr. Greer he served a motion to compel, that is pretty good notice
RG: I forgot about to respond to that. I didn't respond to it, "and ehm relevance".
JCB: By not responding you waived your objection to relevance. Your motion to reconsider also does not address relevance
JCB: Get the case file, mark it attorneys eyes only, and provide it in 14 days to MH. Within 21 days status report what MH has received then consider fees
And not just fees if we don't at least see production then we are going to be talking about 37b case termination refusal to cooperate.
Rule 11 sanctions:
JCB: asking for sanctions for violating a restraining order even though mr. greer hadn't read it. Then withdrawal of witnesses and one eager to testify who was deceased. Help me understand
RG: I was listing every person I talked to about people who would testify, I should have made sure he was still interested and still alive
MH explains the issues with production and prejudices to defendants.
JCB: elaborate about the prejudices, N Florida referred to this stuff about the witnesses
MH: Steve Taylor needed to testifiy in Utah and it was transferred back to Florida, not expressly on those grounds but after RG made that pleading
Then we got to, charitable interpretation that we got to disclosing witnesses, then we issued subpoenas to find out what it's about. In his motion Real witnesses was actually in all caps.
It was my failure to locate ST, and RG refusing to respond, is why I filed the motion. Then RG said they had a falling out. But I would much rather talk to someone he had a falling out with, so I file a motion and then RG says oh actually he's dead.
Also prejudicial to legal system to have this bouncing back and forth. This plaintiff just pops off at the mouth or pen and just files it.
RG: there is no prejudice because JM lived in Florida but there were rumors he lived abroad or elsewhere. MH hasn't even said if Joshua lives in Florida.
As for ST, I misspoke. However the other two said they could testify. They are just latching on ST.
JCB: rule 11 under advisement, written order. Two parts: violation, we just talked about that. Next: what do we do about it.
MH: tough question. At a minimum fees relating to ST and PO. I don't think that unrings the bell because we are back in Utah. Moon has declaration he lives in FL. I think sanctions should be case termination. There is nowhere for this case to go.
RG: ok so I have written evidence that was saying that JM was living overseas. If he is in Florida he has to provide some sort of address. I am working with Law enforecement because he has been stalking me for 8 years. I have photographs posting my copyrights online. There is something seriously wrong with this person. A simple sir, please can you leave me alone, was not stopping this.
JCB: I understand why you're persuing legal action but we have to do that according to law. When you make representations, they have to be correct.
I will take it under advisement, we will look at both prongs. I'll issue an order.
Motion to stay 245: stay discovery until everyone is served, no response was filed. So my intention is to stay, until the motion to dismiss is decided as that is the alternative grounds for relief.
MH: Russtard and Mosef Jartelli haven't been disclosed as having any information. We are not dissatisfied if we stay until motion to dismiss is adjudicated.
RG: I disagree they don't have any information. One of them directly infringed my copyright, russtard was conspiring to infringe, so I was trying to find out how to serve these people.
If you stay I will file a subpoena to find out how to serve them.
MH: a moment ago he said he was overzealous in disclosing but he didn't disclose these folks, that is a problem.
JCB: well he can amend
MH: he can amend but he hasn't amended the disclosures. Never disclosed these people. Neither does JCM have any discoverable information in disclosure, yet he served discovery on JCM for the information for (the users) who also have no information. Plus copyright violations have expired.
JCB: for purposes of going forward, you have to look at 26E, disclosures aren't needed if you already know about it. If JCM has information he doesn't need to be discoverable per RG, because he is the defendant.
MH: you will likely see a new motion based on things stated in court today about that.
JCB: motion to stay granted until motion to dismiss is decided.
ECG251: a stay/62B bonded stay, which is after judgment is entered.
JCB: that is final judgment, when the case is decided. A bond is dealing with the appeal, not an interlocutory discovery sanction order.
He can ask to stay if he'd like, but I can't stay a District judge's order, so I can't rule on that. And under that rule it's imrproper so I would deny it. You do have the right to ask judge Barlow to stay whatever.
IFP determination 253 258. 258 is asking for rescreening of amended as an alternative for 253. 258 only if IFP is still applicable.
MH agrees.
JCB: RG admits he is able even if he is unwilling to pay, therefore MH says he can afford filing fees. Help me understand
RG: yes I can pay 400 dollars, again MH focuses on oall these little things, I don't see how this has any relevance to copyright infringement.
JCB ok 2 things, yes on its face irrelevant, but it has to do with whether the court can hear the case. The filing fee has to be paid. If you can afford, i'm gonna order you to pay, otherwise I will dismis the case ater 30 days. Are you able to continue paying rent and other expenses
RG: yes
JCB: Assuming that is paid, 253 will be moot, if the case is not dismissed.
Conclusion:
I have stayed discovery with one exception, to produce the documents about the restraining order. MH is going to file a status report to let me know what's going on.
I will take rule 11 under advisement, we will await briefing on motion to dismiss, MG has ability to pay the filing fee, 253 is moot either way because IFP removed or case removed.
255 is granted. 251 is denied without prejudice, 62B is unapplicable hre. 228 is moot because of Barlow.
(the numbers I may have lost)
JCB: number one you didn't even try to get the restraining order files from the court, they will provided them if you ask, it is your case. Why haven't you?
RG: because Hardin could just get it, he never said he couldn't.
JCB: But Mr. Greer he served a motion to compel, that is pretty good notice
RG: I forgot about to respond to that. I didn't respond to it, "and ehm relevance".
JCB: By not responding you waived your objection to relevance. Your motion to reconsider also does not address relevance
JCB: Get the case file, mark it attorneys eyes only, and provide it in 14 days to MH. Within 21 days status report what MH has received then consider fees
And not just fees if we don't at least see production then we are going to be talking about 37b case termination refusal to cooperate.
Rule 11 sanctions:
JCB: asking for sanctions for violating a restraining order even though mr. greer hadn't read it. Then withdrawal of witnesses and one eager to testify who was deceased. Help me understand
RG: I was listing every person I talked to about people who would testify, I should have made sure he was still interested and still alive
MH explains the issues with production and prejudices to defendants.
JCB: elaborate about the prejudices, N Florida referred to this stuff about the witnesses
MH: Steve Taylor needed to testifiy in Utah and it was transferred back to Florida, not expressly on those grounds but after RG made that pleading
Then we got to, charitable interpretation that we got to disclosing witnesses, then we issued subpoenas to find out what it's about. In his motion Real witnesses was actually in all caps.
It was my failure to locate ST, and RG refusing to respond, is why I filed the motion. Then RG said they had a falling out. But I would much rather talk to someone he had a falling out with, so I file a motion and then RG says oh actually he's dead.
Also prejudicial to legal system to have this bouncing back and forth. This plaintiff just pops off at the mouth or pen and just files it.
RG: there is no prejudice because JM lived in Florida but there were rumors he lived abroad or elsewhere. MH hasn't even said if Joshua lives in Florida.
As for ST, I misspoke. However the other two said they could testify. They are just latching on ST.
JCB: rule 11 under advisement, written order. Two parts: violation, we just talked about that. Next: what do we do about it.
MH: tough question. At a minimum fees relating to ST and PO. I don't think that unrings the bell because we are back in Utah. Moon has declaration he lives in FL. I think sanctions should be case termination. There is nowhere for this case to go.
RG: ok so I have written evidence that was saying that JM was living overseas. If he is in Florida he has to provide some sort of address. I am working with Law enforecement because he has been stalking me for 8 years. I have photographs posting my copyrights online. There is something seriously wrong with this person. A simple sir, please can you leave me alone, was not stopping this.
JCB: I understand why you're persuing legal action but we have to do that according to law. When you make representations, they have to be correct.
I will take it under advisement, we will look at both prongs. I'll issue an order.
Motion to stay 245: stay discovery until everyone is served, no response was filed. So my intention is to stay, until the motion to dismiss is decided as that is the alternative grounds for relief.
MH: Russtard and Mosef Jartelli haven't been disclosed as having any information. We are not dissatisfied if we stay until motion to dismiss is adjudicated.
RG: I disagree they don't have any information. One of them directly infringed my copyright, russtard was conspiring to infringe, so I was trying to find out how to serve these people.
If you stay I will file a subpoena to find out how to serve them.
MH: a moment ago he said he was overzealous in disclosing but he didn't disclose these folks, that is a problem.
JCB: well he can amend
MH: he can amend but he hasn't amended the disclosures. Never disclosed these people. Neither does JCM have any discoverable information in disclosure, yet he served discovery on JCM for the information for (the users) who also have no information. Plus copyright violations have expired.
JCB: for purposes of going forward, you have to look at 26E, disclosures aren't needed if you already know about it. If JCM has information he doesn't need to be discoverable per RG, because he is the defendant.
MH: you will likely see a new motion based on things stated in court today about that.
JCB: motion to stay granted until motion to dismiss is decided.
ECG251: a stay/62B bonded stay, which is after judgment is entered.
JCB: that is final judgment, when the case is decided. A bond is dealing with the appeal, not an interlocutory discovery sanction order.
He can ask to stay if he'd like, but I can't stay a District judge's order, so I can't rule on that. And under that rule it's imrproper so I would deny it. You do have the right to ask judge Barlow to stay whatever.
IFP determination 253 258. 258 is asking for rescreening of amended as an alternative for 253. 258 only if IFP is still applicable.
MH agrees.
JCB: RG admits he is able even if he is unwilling to pay, therefore MH says he can afford filing fees. Help me understand
RG: yes I can pay 400 dollars, again MH focuses on oall these little things, I don't see how this has any relevance to copyright infringement.
JCB ok 2 things, yes on its face irrelevant, but it has to do with whether the court can hear the case. The filing fee has to be paid. If you can afford, i'm gonna order you to pay, otherwise I will dismis the case ater 30 days. Are you able to continue paying rent and other expenses
RG: yes
JCB: Assuming that is paid, 253 will be moot, if the case is not dismissed.
Conclusion:
I have stayed discovery with one exception, to produce the documents about the restraining order. MH is going to file a status report to let me know what's going on.
I will take rule 11 under advisement, we will await briefing on motion to dismiss, MG has ability to pay the filing fee, 253 is moot either way because IFP removed or case removed.
255 is granted. 251 is denied without prejudice, 62B is unapplicable hre. 228 is moot because of Barlow.
(the numbers I may have lost)
Last edited:
YouTube Autist
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2024
Thank you to everyone who posted such detailed and lively updates for the benefit of we poor plebs who were stuck in the waiting room.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
That's not what's at issue. The issue is the original complaint
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
The judge scheduled that for 1:00 PM, with nothing after, and it's over in an hour?
So he gets the rest of the afternoon off?
I picked the wrong job.
So he gets the rest of the afternoon off?
I picked the wrong job.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2022
The greatest tragedy coming from losing this lawsuit wouldn't be the utter destruction to the copyright system and the awful precedent. But instead the fact null would have to change his stream waiting room song because it includes the line "at least I've never lost a lawsuit"
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
Feeling blessed I got in. We were doubled over in laughter at many points throughout, especially at the "Jim Jorton" (Jordan?) [sic] segment. Thanks Greer and Jersh.
A Pleasant Disposition
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2025
I joined KW specifically because of this thread. I left work early to join this call. I, too, was zoomcucked.
Thank you to everyone for the detailed play-by-play.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Judge gets to fuck off and deal with paperwork, they often have "afternoons off" because of trials and shit that might run long. There's always fucking paperwork.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
The filing fee is for case to be opened.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2022
I bet null is feeling pretty good right now, not as good as if he had gotten it dismissed today but still pretty good.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Goddamn, Greer rolled over surprisingly easy about the IFP filing thing.
Really? I thought it sounded like he was properly losing IFP status.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2022
The judge specifically brought up the specter of "case ending sanctions" when ruling on this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2023
I look forward to Greer asking for a stay of sanctions at Barlow's discretion. I'd like to say he won't grant it since he cut them by 80%, but since the district judge did that by pulling a number out of his ass, I think it's hard to say if he will actually go so far as to stay the amount in sanctions for the retard.
I am glad his IFP status is revoked.
I am glad his IFP status is revoked.
Last edited: