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

[RussianParasite]

There is one method he can use to get out and never have to deal with Hardin again. Greer himself has mentioned it multiple times in his filings, but said he probably won’t do it.

I’m glad he hasn’t figured out that suing a celebrity again would reset all of the IFP statuses for ongoing cases.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

its still pretty early in the proceedings

I know you mean that we're barely scraping the surface of discovery, but Shitlips has been at this for a looooooong time.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Well, I sure am glad that I am not Russell Greer

Or rather, let me be a bit clearer. He is allowed to withdraw in one of three ways:

1. He gets permission from Null/Mr. Hardin.
2. He petitions the court and the court allows him to leave (not as simple as it sounds, and the court is required to weigh the costs the defense had already incurred, and whether this free leave would prejudice them, and if so whether to grant it whilst making the defense whole, or just deny it outright)
3. He settles with Null.

 

[Probably An Autist]

He ignored his option for a free, easy walk-away by paying the filing. He clearly can't stop, wont stop. This case has no brakes, we're going to the end of the line.

 

[Bridgeburner]

Well, I sure am glad that I am not Russell Greer

Whenever I have a bad day at work, I just come here and my day instantly gets better because I'm not bound to a soulless existance, devoid of any happiness or human interaction.

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

Or rather, let me be a bit clearer. He is allowed to withdraw in one of three ways:

1. He gets permission from Null/Mr. Hardin.
2. He petitions the court and the court allows him to leave (not as simple as it sounds, and the court is required to weigh the costs the defense had already incurred, and whether this free leave would prejudice them, and if so whether to grant it whilst making the defense whole, or just deny it outright)
3. He settles with Null.

Would option 1 be possible if Null/Hardin made Shitlips take the status of vexatious litigant as a condition of withdrawing his suit?

 

[The Un-Clit]

Would option 1 be possible if Null/Hardin made Shitlips take the status of vexatious litigant as a condition of withdrawing his suit?

I don't think you can just "take" that status, a judge has to decide that the person warrants it, then apply it and set conditions, etc.

 

[Bloodthirsty Nosenigger]

There is one method he can use to get out and never have to deal with Hardin again. Greer himself has mentioned it multiple times in his filings, but said he probably won’t do it.

Rendering his facially defective filings moot by taking a shotgun slug to his defective face?
He won't, it's Just another pathetic ploy for sympathy.
Pro tip for Crusty Rusty: Nobody cares if you bring your to disgraceful life to a disgraceful end. It'd be a net benefit for society.

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

I don't think you can just "take" that status, a judge has to decide that the person warrants it, then apply it and set conditions, etc.

What if he just agreed to change his name to Vexatious Litigant?

 

[GloriousScarf]

Imagine my surprise when I return from a week-long vacation (it was lovely, thanks for asking) and the thread has jumped 70 pages.

I've been laughing my ass off here catching up. Truly this must be close to the end now, it's just wonderful to see all his lies catching up with him.

 

[Sneed Force One]

Would option 1 be possible if Null/Hardin made Shitlips take the status of vexatious litigant as a condition of withdrawing his suit?

It would be very exceptional for someone to willingly accept being branded a vexatious litigant.

One, because it will permanently damage any future case, look at Moon v Stebbins, Hardin snapped out Stebbins' vex lit status like a whip.

Two, the type of people who earn a vex lit status aren't usually negotiators, and earned their status rightfully.

 

[obsdj]

So recapping the open stuff...

The judge is still dragging it out on ruling on ECF 234 (motion for sanctions that he took under advisement at the hearing), re: Greer's lies about witnesses including Steve Taylor.

The judge also needs to rule on Greer's motion for show cause, ECF 299, what is the damn holdup on that? He also needs to rule on the idiotic motion for a protective order, ECF 314. There is also Hardin's motion to unseal document 1 for his own private viewing, ECF 313, which I would expect the judge to either sit on or deny because of Greer's own fucktardery.

Greer still needs to submit the Utah stuff by June 3rd. He has to pay Null the sanction by June 9th.

Hardin's next motion for sanctions will be filed June 10th, as well as his update on whether Greer complied by sending him the Utah stuff. Greer's "motion to set aside" that production order (ECF 243) was taken under advisement at the hearing, which presumably will be dealt with if/when Greer produces (or not) after that date.

Hardin's reply to Greer's opposition to the motion to dismiss isn't due until June 30th. The motion to dismiss itself won't likely be addressed until after that. Discovery has been stayed until that is addressed.

But now it's a new week after a long weekend and who knows, there could be ten brand-new filings before the month of May is even out. Wheee!

 

[Fat and Balding]

This case has no brakes, we're going to the end of the line.

To the Moon.

 

[TheOtherSideofMakeBelieve]

Would option 1 be possible if Null/Hardin made Shitlips take the status of vexatious litigant as a condition of withdrawing his suit?

Typically you can't just sign away your rights even if you want to and you have a right to address your grievances in court. I don't remember off the top of my head but the closest thing I can think of is one of the alphabet agencies was convincing people that were making edgy jokes online that, if they didn't sign away their right to bear arms, they might be looking at criminal charges. I think we only got one name from the list of people who they'd abused in this way because they destroyed that list immediately upon someone taking it to court to try and have their rights restored

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

Typically you can't just sign away your rights even if you want to and you have a right to address your grievances in court. I don't remember off the top of my head but the closest thing I can think of is one of the alphabet agencies was convincing people that were making edgy jokes online that, if they didn't sign away their right to bear arms, they might be looking at criminal charges. I think we only got one name from the list of people who they'd abused in this way because they destroyed that list immediately upon someone taking it to court to try and have their rights restored

I think I know which case you're talking about. IIRC, some high school kid installed TOR on his school's laptop and the feds bullied him into signing an NICS form saying he forfeited his right to a background check.

So if Russ can't take the status of a vexatious litigant, I guess the next best thing is for him to get fucked with the sanctions he deserves. And if that doesn't teach him, I guess there's a reason why he's a lolcow.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

There is one method he can use to get out and never have to deal with Hardin again. Greer himself has mentioned it multiple times in his filings, but said he probably won’t do it.

Much to the dismay of all involved.

 

[Uncle Buck]

To the Moon.

To the Moon, Alice.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

>Be Russell Greer
>Decide Kiwi Orchards Farms is a creepy stalking site
>Declare in a public court filing that they constantly upload screenshots of my posts
>Continue to make public posts
>Fail to properly use protective order
>Continue antagonizing creepy stalking site
>Kiwi Farmers upload screenshots of crazy posts
>Kiwis dig up past posts I've moved on from so why can't they?
>Kiwis dig into every word I post to undermine my totally awesome case
>Shocked_Pikachu_Face.jpe-
>Wait
>I can't do that
>My face is paralyzed
>MFW

 

[Harvey Danger]

So recapping the open stuff...

I expect this week to be quiet (unless Greer voluntarily shoots himself in the same foot, again, for no reason). Too many deadlines to start up new actions, and too many case-ending judgments hanging open.

It would actually be a good week for the judge to start clearing up the things he took under advisement. Static issues like the witness sanctions don't benefit from waiting, and there's multiple pileups on the horizon.

Next week will have filings based on Greer's delivery or lack thereof, same with the next week, then 2 more weeks until Hardin's response is due. That Motion to dismiss warrants some judicial thoroughness, whichever way the judge rules, and after this month he has to know Hardin is waiting to pile more causes to dismiss into the docket. If the judge is waiting to have everything resolved before he rules on dismissal, he's just going to run into a bigger mess and never catch up.

 

[Bloodthirsty Nosenigger]

Typically you can't just sign away your rights even if you want to and you have a right to address your grievances in court. I don't remember off the top of my head but the closest thing I can think of is one of the alphabet agencies was convincing people that were making edgy jokes online that, if they didn't sign away their right to bear arms, they might be looking at criminal charges. I think we only got one name from the list of people who they'd abused in this way because they destroyed that list immediately upon someone taking it to court to try and have their rights restored

I suppose Null could make a settlement offer under the condition of Russell providing a sworn statement, conceding that all the claims brought against Lolcow LLC and Kiwifarms (a website) were without merit, and brought for an improper purpose. That should make it really easy to label him vexatious.

In theory, such a concession should come easy for our gimpy-faced retard, given that he's previously and repeatedly stated his improper purposes (causing financial harm to defendant, trying to force removal of his thread, a relief which the court cannot grant).
He would merely lose the ability to bring these frivolous claims again, but that's already the case if dismissal is granted for any of the many reasons he so graciously provided himself. Dismissal with prejudice would bar the issue under res iudicata, but even without prejudice, he's barred by statute of limitations.

Of course, he's far too arrogant and delusional to see things this way, but the possibility of being indebted to Null for the foreseeable future might knock some sense into him.