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

[DavidS877]

I suspect that the judge will accept a SPO-delivered copy of the application with the refusal in place of the order.

Really, this is all discovery, as U_M highlighted(again), none of this gets entered into the docket unless the court requests it, it's all between the parties. Greer gets the document, marks it "For shitty lawyer's eyes only", sends it to Mr. Hardin. Mr. Hardin says to the court "This is sufficient" or "This is not sufficient." And then the court could ask for it to be filed under seal, but probably not because I can't imagine they give a fuck.

Also note the wording "Restraining order filed against..." so, not that it was granted but that the filing was made by Greer to a court. Obviously for KF users it's easier to call it an "Application for a restraining order" so they, like Greer, don't get confused.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

I'm sure whatever formula the music industry has to calculate the value of a work is bullshit, but it would be interesting to calculate out for these works. Because there's no way Russ's song is worth $402 (much less another grand on top). He's deep in the hole on this, and between losing IFP and potential future sanctions, it looks like Russ is going to deepen the hole.

 

[HackerX]

The Magistrate did explain to him the relevance in very clear words before asking if he really could afford the filing fee. But I doubt Russ listened

His neurons were too busy from his rebuttal that he didn't really process what the judge was saying.

I'd like to point out that the Judge did the same thing as every poster here, and also got confused about what he ordered at the hearing.


Well, I guess Russ can't fulfill this new order then.

ROFL. So uhh, is there a scenario where the judge kinda forgets he asked for the application, and not the order, a few weeks from now and chews Russ out? I imagine Hardin can kinda save him from that situation if he straightens everything out in his status report, but it'd be on par with the case if this turns into a mess.

 

[RodgerDodger]

I'm just happy Russell was able to reschedule that urgent meeting! It sure seemed like he wouldn't be able to, but I guess he worked that Greer charisma and got it taken care of, how lucky!
View attachment 7329843

He didn't. His phone was binging with what we assume to be Door Dash Delivery orders throughout the hearing. Somebody was getting cold late pizza delivered by a seething psychopath yesterday.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Did either the judge or Russ explicitly refer to the application rather than the actual RO in the hearing (I wasn't there)? If not, maybe the judge really believes the RO exists rather than a rejected application?

Both did, but the Judge only did so after he learned that no RO existed (he was under the impression that it did exist and Russ had handed it over). He then proceeded to shit on Russ for solid 5 minutes. Eventually both agreed (and so did Mr. Hardin) that the application is at issue, not the non existent order.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Since Benett cited the addition of new witnesses as permissible under an amended complaint, I wonder if Hardin regrets allowing it since it seems to me the potential benefits from that didn't pan out, not yet at least.

Russ isn't IFP anymore. The Court will no longer provide Service of the Lawsuit to those Defendents for free. He's going to have to pay for a process server for each.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The confusion around this, entered into the official docket, is clear proof that everyone involved needs the true and honest court approved recording.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Given the order at ECF 283 (regarding the IFP status), is motion to reconsider regarding ECF 230 not proper? "Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." - Hark'n Technologies v. Orange Whip Fitness X et al (D. Utah 2025) (also Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment v. Harley-Davidson of Salt Lake City(D. Utah 2024)). I'd argue both (2) and (3) are met considering one of the factors the court relied on turned out to be false/changed (IFP status). That's in addition to Mr. Hardin's preserved complaints, as well as considering the fact that by the time the District Judge ruled on it, the Magistrate was threatening new sanctions. For motions to reconsider there is no strict time limit to file them. In Luo v. Wang, 71 F. 4th 1289 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2023, the tenth circuit was asked to weigh in on the issue. It rejected the notion of the lower court that there was a balancing test (the lower court held that "a motion should be brought within a reasonable time, which is determined by balancing the interests of finality with the reasons for any delay in bringing the motion") holding that no such time limit existed for interlocutory orders.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

OK, this was the bit that I'd missed. I'm not grasping why it would cause undue suffering, but I understand why Greer would make the claim -- to try and avoid having his bullshit allegations subjected to scrutiny.

Assuming Greer actually files something with the court, can Hardin move to have it unsealed, assuming that there's no real reason why it should be sealed?

court says no then its a no. sure hardin could move to unseal but it has fuck all to so with the case he's defending

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The confusion around this, entered into the official docket, is clear proof that everyone involved needs the true and honest court approved recording.

Mr. Hardin ordered both the recording and the transcript. I think he did so last time too, but only the transcript was made public.

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

He likely can, but probably isn't required to

I'd like to point out that the Judge did the same thing as every poster here, and also got confused about what he ordered at the hearing.
View attachment 7330295

Well, I guess Russ can't fulfill this new order then.

Honestly I did NOT get the impression from the hearing that the judge was aware no restraining order exists. I was waiting for Hardin to double check the Judge was aware but assumed I must have missed something. Once we get a transcript I want to go re-read that part.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Honestly I did NOT get the impression from the hearing that the judge was aware no restraining order exists. I was waiting for Hardin to double check the Judge was aware but assumed I must have missed something.

Mr. Hardin explained to him that he also thought Russ was referring to an actual order, until he received a third party copy of a denial of Russ' RO application. Judge grilled Greer on why he never provided that application to Mr. Hardin. The Judge was both under the impression that RO existed and that it was handed over, that is, until Mr. Hardin corrected him, and Russ agreed that Mr. Hardin was correct.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Did either the judge or Russ explicitly refer to the application rather than the actual RO in the hearing (I wasn't there)? If not, maybe the judge really believes the RO exists rather than a rejected application?

This thread has gotten really twisted up on this point. What am I missing? The court told Russ to get his case file on the RO and provide Hardin with what he filed. He could have specified "the petition for an RO and accompanying affidavit and anything else filed," but he short-formed it in the order - but still said "filed." What's the title at the top of an RO petition? Doesn't matter - he's been told to go get a copy and produce what he filed. Mark it confidential/attorneys' eyes only so we don't have another excruciating battle about Russ retardation - and I'd better not hear of it getting uploaded online. Court now knows Russ weasel-worded, tried to refashion discovery rules unilaterally, and dragged out discovery for no reason. Whether Russ is being difficult bc it's his default setting, or whether he doesn't want anyone to know what he (probably lied about in a sworn statement and) said in his petition bc it will confirm his pattern of lies and outlandishness, who knows.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

He could have specified "the petition for an RO and accompanying affidavit and anything else filed," but he short-formed it in the order - but still said "filed."

It matters because this is the exact same vague language that created this whole mess in the first place. A RO being filed implies it's of some legal effect and force. That's how we understood it, Mr. Hardin understood it, the Magistrate understood it, and so on. There's absolutely no reason to not add a single word it would take it to make it more clear. In the hearing, I think they used the word "application" after the Judge found out that no RO actually existed.

 

[The Man With No Name]

It matters because this is the exact same vague language that created this whole mess in the first place. A RO being filed implies it's of some legal effect and force. That's how we understood it, Mr. Hardin understood it, the Magistrate understood it, and so on. There's absolutely no reason to not add a single word it would take it to make it more clear. In the hearing, I think they used the word "application" after the Judge found out that no RO actually existed.

It matters especially when during the motion hearing yesterday the Magistrate wanted to quibble with Hardin over specifics after applying almost no scrutiny to Greer's motions and words. Even to the bitter end, Hardin has to fight and perform near-flawless defense for this judge to make a Pro Se flea buzz off for good.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Mr. Hardin ordered both the recording and the transcript. I think he did so last time too, but only the transcript was made public.

Yeah, I'm paying attention. I'm just providing evidence of a pressing public need.

 

[obsdj]

It matters because this is the exact same vague language that created this whole mess in the first place.

Made all the more frustrating by the judge chastising Hardin for "hypertechnical flyspecking" regarding initial disclosures. Basically telling him he was nitpicking regarding the two John Does.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Made all the more frustrating by the judge chastising Hardin for "hypertechnical flyspecking" regarding initial disclosures. Basically telling him he was nitpicking regarding the two John Does.

Thankfully they referred the matter for a time it actually became relevant, IIRC from the hearing. Which, if the motion to dismiss is granted, will never come.

 

[obsdj]

Which, if the motion to dismiss is granted, will never come.

Sure is a shame we didn't get a, what was it, an "omnibussy" in which the judge also took up every motion that came after the hearing was scheduled, le sigh, sadface. But Hardin did indicate that he would indeed likely bring that renewed 26a motion soon enough. "You will likely see a renewed motion based on things that were stated orally in court today, and we can address it at that point." Maybe he shouldn't wait for the motion to dismiss to be addressed and just get it on the record now, do we think? God only knows when the motion to dismiss will even be dealt with, but I'm guessing at least a month, while we wait for Greer to produce the RO documents and pay the filing fee.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

It matters because this is the exact same vague language that created this whole mess in the first place. A RO being filed implies it's of some legal effect and force. That's how we understood it, Mr. Hardin understood it, the Magistrate understood it, and so on. There's absolutely no reason to not add a single word it would take it to make it more clear. In the hearing, I think they used the word "application" after the Judge found out that no RO actually existed.

Sure, there was original confusion, caused by Russell. But the Court's order is not vague bc a filing isn't an order.