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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

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

  • This Month

    Votes: 67 15.3%

  • Next Month

    Votes: 52 11.9%

  • This Year

    Votes: 71 16.2%

  • Next Year

    Votes: 146 33.4%

  • Whenever he issues an update to the sanctions

    Votes: 101 23.1%
  • Total voters
    437
obsdj said:
Josh is talking about Greer v. Moon on MATI right now!

Hardin is looking to file an amicus brief!

LAWGAAAAAAASM
Click to expand...
Basic summary from Null is that if the Supreme Court responds and agrees that the 10th circuit decision was retarded, that could just vacate Greer v. Moon forever. He and Hardin need money though since filing anything with the Supreme Court requires going through a specific printing press to format everything correctly that charges out the ass.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: YarrBlueballs, rubytintedchix, unclejeb1861 and 45 others
The Stranger said:
so is the quarter million we raised gone or?
Click to expand...
I would assume Null still has at least some of that money but dropping $10K on a single filing or whatever warrants advertising more memberships to MATI.

In the end, I hope it's worth it with Greer begging for mercy and facing real consequences for the first time in his legal career. Sure, he paid Skordas $1500 after his Ariana Grande lawsuit but that was only cause it was dismissed immediately cause the judge saw it was retarded on its face. His ultimate debt to Null/Hardin will hopefully teach him once and for all that the legal system isn't a tool to use against anyone that won't suck his cock. Maybe he'll even go back to being a Mormon in the hopes that one of their lawyers protects him in exchange for him putting on the magic underwear that the Temple requires.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Jet Leg, unclejeb1861, jerkstore and 22 others
I also dont think Null CAN use the legal defense fund for an Amicus Brief. That money is subject to strict legal requirements for Null and And his LLC. Doing an Amicus for a case involving Cox and Sony would be outside the scope of what that money can be used for.

I could be wrong though, and there is some wizardry that could make it work, but in general fucking around with IOLTA's is under the heading of "bad idea."

Plus Null said he wants the Amicus to be filed by USIPS, which means he definitely cannot use the legal fund money.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: unclejeb1861, Clovis, jerkstore and 21 others
I wonder if the RussPayment™ (if it ever appears) has to go into the IOLTA or it could go direct to Null to use for whatever he wanted.
 
DavidS877 said:
I believe Mr. Hardin sent Greee the ACH for the IOLTA to send payment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm wondering if that's a requirement. Basically a "the fees incurred were paid by the IOLTA so the sanction has to go to the IOLTA" or it's just "any money whatsoever can still go into the IOLTA" (as I believe we can still contribute by check, etc).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: often puzzled and 3MMA
reptile baht spaniard rid said:
Yeah, I'm wondering if that's a requirement. Basically a "the fees incurred were paid by the IOLTA so the sanction has to go to the IOLTA" or it's just "any money whatsoever can still go into the IOLTA" (as I believe we can still contribute by check, etc).
Click to expand...
It's generally good practice for payments sent to pass through the IOLTA, as the lawyer would face professional consequences for trying to play "Check? What check? I didn't get no check!" games.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: ConSluttant, Broken Cuddles, often puzzled and 7 others
mindlessobserver said:
I also dont think Null CAN use the legal defense fund for an Amicus Brief. That money is subject to strict legal requirements for Null and And his LLC. Doing an Amicus for a case involving Cox and Sony would be outside the scope of what that money can be used for.

I could be wrong though, and there is some wizardry that could make it work, but in general fucking around with IOLTA's is under the heading of "bad idea."

Plus Null said he wants the Amicus to be filed by USIPS, which means he definitely cannot use the legal fund money.
Click to expand...
I believe the money was solicited for a general legal defense/offense fund. Any of it that is currently in an IOLTA for the Greer suit probably can't be used. Maybe? But if he still maintains a general purpose legal fund he certainly could use it. The Amicus brief challenging Greer v Moon via the Sony case is certainly in his interests.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: jerkstore, Broken Cuddles, Sexy Senior Citizen and 5 others
mindlessobserver said:
I also dont think Null CAN use the legal defense fund for an Amicus Brief. That money is subject to strict legal requirements for Null and And his LLC. Doing an Amicus for a case involving Cox and Sony would be outside the scope of what that money can be used for.

I could be wrong though, and there is some wizardry that could make it work, but in general fucking around with IOLTA's is under the heading of "bad idea."

Plus Null said he wants the Amicus to be filed by USIPS, which means he definitely cannot use the legal fund money.
Click to expand...
don't think that's how it was set up- at least not all of it- when it was 'advertised.' Seemed to be much broader than that, to the point where null made it clear not to expect a specific thing from the money.

and then a fair amount went to the aussie who had a default judgement against him- less relevant to the greer case than a brief that directly cites the latter.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, Prokhor Zakharov, Pee Cola and 3 others
reptile baht spaniard rid said:
i don't know what I want more, twelve pages of Thomas bitching about the judiciary about it, or twelve pages from Kanji or whatever her name is praising it as the best decision ever
Click to expand...
The horrifying thing is that the latter could happen. The former reflects truth, justice, & American shit talkin’, (ie, that people can talk about shit without a dictator calling shots,) & the latter reflects clown world culture in all its tragic forms. Prayer for a Thomas write up if it comes down to it, the time is nigh for this Greee door to close.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, Gorton Colu, koos koets and 3 others
Gorilla Milk said:
Got a timestamp, or a clip? Hate to say it, but I don't enjoy watching MATI like I used to. Too much tranny-voice, I think.
Click to expand...
Null's tranny voice makes me unironically MATI. Maybe it's because he's way too convincing?
mindlessobserver said:
Null said he wants the Amicus to be filed by USIPS, which means he definitely cannot use the legal fund money.
Click to expand...
Given that both sides in the Sony v. Cox case have cited Greer v. Moon in their respective filings, it certainly feels like something that's within the USIPS wheelhouse. Greer v. Moon, whilst ostensibly a copyright case, was (and still is) an attack against free speech where spurious DCMA requests have been weaponized.

Hardin being at the coal face of this shitshow would make him the most qualified person currently dealing with the US legal system to file an Amicus.

The other thing to consider is that whilst there will be costs borne to produce the Amicus, Hardin's position on the USIPS board implies (to me at least) that he plans on doing this work for USIPS pro-bono. Whilst it still won't be cheap, it could still be way less expensive than it would be if external counsel was needed (i.e. it may only cost 5 figures to jump into Sony v. Cox instead of 6 figures).

I guess we'll know if/when USIPS has an IOLTA set up.

I'm still not a lawyer, just some bozo who's never even set foot in the USA
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Cuddles, Magnetman, Bill Evans 45 and 10 others
I'm kinda surprised the SCoTUS didn't take the case originally for the fact that it created a circuit split, if I'm not mistaken. I can never understand why they don't want to resolve those when they happen. How the hell can one thing have more than one meaning that is just based on geography, that is not how federal law is supposed to work! In fact that is the exact opposite of how federal law is supposed to work since it is supposed to be applied to everyone, everywhere evenly.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SCV, Broken Cuddles, AwfulHumanBean and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back