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

When will the Judge issue a ruling regarding the Motion to Dismiss?

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 14.4%
  • Next Month

    Votes: 56 12.0%
  • This Year

    Votes: 73 15.7%
  • Next Year

    Votes: 156 33.5%
  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 113 24.3%

  • Total voters
    465
Time for another poll?

How much will Null be awarded in sanctions against Greee pursuant to ECF 330?

- $720, being the full amount claimed viz. 2.4 hours of Matthew Hardin's time @ $300 per hour
- Greater than $0 but less than $720 viz. some BS amount Judge Barlow pulled out of his ass as per ECF 230
- $0
Positive Pollies will say 720
 
Now, this does require somebody to have to cognitive capacity to understand that issuing subpoenas to your opposition is an activity that you would undertake during discovery. Russ' extensive paralegal training has unfortunately not allowed him to parse such matters.
No, we're missing the forest for the greees - the 10th clearly has indicated that time travel is acceptable - so Greee just issued the subpoena now but it's still after the motion to dismiss.
 
Time for another poll?

How much will Null be awarded in sanctions against Greee pursuant to ECF 330?

- $720, being the full amount claimed viz. 2.4 hours of Matthew Hardin's time @ $300 per hour
- Greater than $0 but less than $720 viz. some BS amount Judge Barlow pulled out of his ass as per ECF 230
- $0
how bout $1000 :shit-eating:
ngl it would be extremely funny if the judge would just auto grant every sanction against greee for each instance of his obnoxious bullshit and wasting the courts time and slap him with exactly $1000 each time. how many grand in sanctions is this lawsuit worth to you rusty? 4? 12? 26?
 
"WOOHOO! I'm gonna spend my winnings all on (legal) hookers. Ooh la la! 😜😎"
It would be funnier if Kiwi Farms, a website, made a donation to the lady who is buying up and demolishing 'historic' brothels.

Greer is either incompetent to represent himself or is malicious.
Your 'either/or' is redundant. It's both.

I had never come across the highly legal term 'flyspecking' before. I now understand it to mean 'no evidentiary or factual basis is required to be stated in actionable legal filings'.

I agree that Greee is working unsociable hours. He's submitting emails while watching 'Suits' on his break. I look forward to him dropping 'I don't get you Meghan Markle (I loved you for your sparkle)', the song of the summer of 2029.

Russell no longer has his IPF sanctions shield so I look to the future with a very, very small amount of hope.
 
I really wish some big normie pandering lawtube channel would pick it up not to discuss the case itself, but the fact that several courts will gladly accomodate for a total mushmouth retard sped shitlips litigant, up to and including doing plaintiff's work for him, and drag the case on for years, seemingly only because everyone involved in it from the government is incompetent and should be disposed of.
The vast majority of Lawtubers worship the Judiciary. The only ones that don't are 2A Advocates and Constitutionalists but even THEN there are exceptions.
The system can be criticized, but it can't be doubted, and it always has to be respected. If it isn't, well, everything falls apart you see.
It's in the Constitution, after all.
The Judiciary REALLY has two jobs based off of who they're dealing with. If it's "The Government" their job is "interpret" Law in a way most favorable to the Government. Only when the SC steps in and says "We LITERALLY can't find a way to give the Government deference here. Like.. There's literally a line in the Constitution that expressesly forbids this in this exact way" do they limit Governmental power.
For squabbles between commoners and corporations they get free reign to do whatever they want. If it's a bad ruling an appeals court basically gives deference to lower courts unless it's so egregious they can't ignore it. The SC basically doesn't like doing anything, hoping their bad children in the lower courts can handle it. Only when it's obvious a lower court has fabricated law (also known as POWER) from thin air do they step in and do something. They really don't like it when Districts start forming little fiefdoms that ignore decades of settled law.

I'm beginning to think this court ain't great at the whole judiciarying thing.
It's Nulls money, and the Judge gets paid either way. He's got no dog in the fight so why would the Court care? To be fair this is kind of how you'd LIKE it to go when some normie with no legal experience or money sues a corpo. It never DOES, but ideally you'd want the Courts to be kind of favorable to you when you're in appeals court over of a summery dismissal for Qualified Immunity when a cop mag dumps you because you reached did your wallet.

What the fuck is Utah's problem where they blatantly disregard law? This entire process has become such a mockery and a shitshow. Does the judge not care? Do the courts not care? Are these morons in Utah just that apathetic? Do they seriously not see the legal rammifications already shaping up from their blunder (ISPs v Sony). Are they seriously bending over backwards for a "man" who has repeatedly defied and failed to produce evidence?
To be fair Judges will do shit like this when they REALLY don't like you and don't want to have your case back on appeals, or disagree with an issue being challenged in court.
Like they'll give you the benefit of the doubt or guide you down pathways to questioning so you can argue multiple points, even if they suck or are bad. It removes it as a pathway to appeal and solidifies precedent.
 
Don't say that, Scaven win in the lore! (Don't they? Been a looooong time)
Well he is one now
images.webpfile_00000000d55462468f14b8e071da00fd.webp

P.S. I hope I don't derail thread with this.
 
At this point I'm convinced Greer could just assault Hardin in the parking lot and the judge would simply tell him not to do that and keep the case going. Feels like the court is willing to let anything happen because "Kiwi Farms Evil!!!"
The frustrating thing about facing off against a stupid, brazen, shameless legal opponent is that they’re not wrong to keep pushing the envelope. Judges frequently coddle them at every pass, thereby actively incentivizing the assholes to keep doing it. Literally nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to judges getting it wrong and rewarding those who act exclusively in bad faith.
 
I have realized we have entered the phase of this case that could best be described as

SANCTIONKRIEG
Monsieur, of all people, you should know that this is more like Russell's battle of Sedan: He's stuck "in the chamber pot and about to be shat upon".

Also considering Russel's love of Adolph Hitler I went looking for a funny propaganda poster
Russell would be an ideal poster child for Aktion T4. Or Planned Parenthood.
 
When I woke up today, I was thinking "I wonder how they actually went about getting the subpoena issue fixed, did the judge have to get involved or was it just explaining things to the clerk?"

I didn't expect to log on and find out Russ had committed YET ANOTHER fraud on the court, already up for sanctions. Good God what a fuckup :story:
 
My guess is Greer figured he did his part by telling the court fees are needed for the SPO application, null plz pay, and with that he was free and clear to do his subpoena-ing.
You know, if Greee wasn't a few R's short of retard, he'd realize he could have just had the clerk issue a subpoena to the Utah State Court for the documents needed ....

Checkmate, jurists!
 
I'm going to give Mr. Greee some credit, his emails do make me chuckle with glee(e).

"Matthew is a pro hac vice attorney, whose credentials im highly skeptical of. These pestering emails are an example."

Yes. Mr. Greee, (who is a pro se litigant), the pro hac vice attorney is totally below you on the pecking order. These emails to the clerk of the very court your case is in, relating to a matter of that case, is pestering.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to get greedy, we got a sanction already even before breakfast, but...

1749220366992.webp

Where's the motion, Russ? You've got the Clerk's attention, surely they'd be quick about filing it. So where's the good faith honest pro se demand for clarification of a cut-and-dry issue? I'm grabbing a sandwich in an hour, I better have something hilariously stupid to read!
 
Back