- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
You know the drill. 313. PDF&Images in happy unison.
Last edited:
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
Let's not count Russ's hookers before they're good and properly fucked.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
Another off ramp for the Judge.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2022
@AnOminous should add a faq portion with the procedural questions that get asked to the OP.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT, MR. STALKER.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2023
Rusty losing his "copywrite" case because he openly spent 14 grand on whores and can't stop suing people would probably be the least satisfying but funniest conclusion to this.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
Holy shit! I think Hardin has him dead to rights, especially due to the Taylor Swift thing.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
That won't stop dumb posters, because they can't read.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2021
Definitely.
I'm kind of expecting the judge to punt this motion as untimely, though, or just to sit on it until the motion to dismiss is ruled on. I dunno.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2017
For my part I'd kind of like to see an end to endless whitenoise "lol plightsperging" and similar posts. Jesus get some new material you fags. We all know Russ is a retard, you don't need to reiterate it for the 500th time in the thread.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Thanks for the tip, retard.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2020
I was doing a bit of research on the poverty allegations portion of 1915(e) and came across a few cases of interest:
Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police Dept., 24 F. App'x 977, 979 (10th Cir. 2002) (determining IFP status is improper where litigant's "montly income exceeds his monthly expenses by a few hundred dollars")
Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191, 197 (10th Cir.1996) ("[W]hen a litigant's financial condition improves during the course of the litigation, the district court may require him or her to pay fees and costs.”)
Lewis v. Center Market, 378 F. App'x 780, 785-86 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding the district court did not err in determining a litigant's improved financial means provided a basis for revoking IFP status)
Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App'x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 200
("The fact that one court concludes that a plaintiff is not able to bear the costs of litigating does not bind all other courts to reach the same conclusion in subsequent litigation.")I was looking for something on point about whether the allegations of poverty are reviewed, for dismissal purposes, only at the time of filing or if allegations of poverty being untrue at any time during the pendency of litigation would require dismissal. I couldn’t find anything on point as to that narrow question within the Tenth Circuit.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2021
His main passion in life, the reason he wakes up each day, may ultimately be his undoing. I can't believe Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, prostitutes, Hitler, Stalin, Mr. Hardin, Null, and the Kiwi Farms would do this. Just let him do anything he wants, without exception.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
Incoming opposition motion of plightsperging and "irrelevant to copywrite"
- Joined
- May 22, 2019
I've said this before, either in here or the main Shitlips thread: this all goes back to his upbringing, and people coddling him because "disabled." It seems like no one in his life--parents, teachers, peers--have ever treated this dude like 'just someone else' and given him expectations or goals to fulfill.
"Oh you tried? Well that's enough for you because you have a paralyzed face."
"Oh you explained why you didn't get anything done? That's enough, because face."
It seems like a fucking ridiculous combination of coddling from many combined with others who just want to pass the retard (e.g. paralegal school) to make him someone else's problem. The result is this selfish, narcissistic imbecile who thinks if he just cries "disabled" hard enough to the
It's good to know that if by some ulta-retarded method Russ prevails and KF is DFE'd from existence, his plights will live on in the memories of suicidal AI models who can explain to future generations what a retard he is.
I have to wonder if Hardin has been sitting on this one for a little bit and then filed it after the filing fee was paid? That would certainly enrage Russ.
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
Yeah I'm going to play Negative Nancy on this one. I don't think the judge has the appetite to re-litigate previous issues, much less the beginnings of this whole mess, as technically allowable as Hardin might be in pursing it.
In the hearing, the one time the judge disagreed with Hardin was on Russ failing to disclose himself or Josh as witnesses with discoverable info.
Hardin is technically correct that pro se retard didn't disclose everyone he wants to discover from, that strictly looking at the record this makes it an unwinnable case (and subject to sanctions for wasting time). The judge doesn't want to hold Greer on this technicality, and when push comes to shove, I think he'll bring back the tard-shield long enough to let Greer testify or demand discovery from Josh.
US law is extremely interested in "hyper-technical flyspecking" to arrive at legal conclusions, but the magistrate seems disinterested in following Hardin down the technical road. I get the sense that he also doesn't want to re-litigate jurisdiction after the venue bouncing fiasco, or re-litigate proper service after 5 years of Josh building up the largest docket he has. And now that Russ has paid the fine, I'd be surprised if he wants to re-litigate the original IFP status either.
Hardin is technically correct that pro se retard didn't disclose everyone he wants to discover from, that strictly looking at the record this makes it an unwinnable case (and subject to sanctions for wasting time). The judge doesn't want to hold Greer on this technicality, and when push comes to shove, I think he'll bring back the tard-shield long enough to let Greer testify or demand discovery from Josh.
US law is extremely interested in "hyper-technical flyspecking" to arrive at legal conclusions, but the magistrate seems disinterested in following Hardin down the technical road. I get the sense that he also doesn't want to re-litigate jurisdiction after the venue bouncing fiasco, or re-litigate proper service after 5 years of Josh building up the largest docket he has. And now that Russ has paid the fine, I'd be surprised if he wants to re-litigate the original IFP status either.
In short, Hardin is providing an off-ramp of the technical kind that neither judge seems overly eager to drive down.
As the joke frequently goes, how well are those must and shall and required statute wordings working out for The Internet's Nigger so far?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2021
This was a little before my time so I had to go see for myself. This wasn't something seedy and unsavory revealed in discovery that Greer was trying to keep secret. Of course not. Greer INCLUDED this proud statement in his Amended Complaint in that case (ECF 55 there):
and six goriilion others
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2023
I always like these little jabs by Hardin. Paying the filing fee after 5 years is insane.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
The worst part about this is every time Greer threatens Mr. Moon or Mr. Hardin with a police report or restraining order there's likely a bunch of time wasted by both forum users and the corresponding government entities responding to requests checking if it's really true.