If he filed IFP I'm thinking Hardin will probably want point it out in the court case. How come he says he can afford the filing fee only a few months ago but not now? Sounds fraudulent to me. And if his financial circumstances changed then, well, that warrants investigation at least.
That seems like the wrong angle to take here: IFP was already revoked and Hardin does not intend to relitigate the reduction in the first sanction to $1,000 unless Greer appeals, so any new IFP filing he makes does not hurt Null and would be consistent with his claim to be unemployed. On the flip side if he does pay the fee, that corroborates his claim in the RO application to be employed which provides more ammo against his claim to be too poor to pay to retrieve it from the Utah court.
Regardless neither of these is going to be enough for Hardin to prove IFP fraud when the inital IFP status was requested and granted in 2020, then untouched for several years while the case was tied up in the 10th Circuit and Florida.
I give you... ECF 1
View attachment 8323215
Images being processed.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE GOT US A HOOKER LOLSUIT
He is suing to get a prostitution referendum on the ballot without meeting signature thresholds:
Not sure about AI, no plightsperging but a lot of ranting about how he has struggled to meet signature gathering requirements (specifically how he cannot meet the requirement for local referenda to be signed by 5 voters in the locality where the referendum will be held):
If I am reading all this right, he wants the ability to count out-of-town/out-of-county signatures towards requirements for local referenda due to the chilling effect having one's name associated with the referendum may be:
And then he conflates circulating (potentially non binding/symbolic) petitions with ones obligating the government to hold a referendum to make this a free speech issue:
I will look for the caselaw but something similar came up years ago in New Jersey: A conservative activist group wanted to circulate recall petitions against then-Sen. Bob Menendez (D), New Jersey officials did not give the activists the petition forms since the state's recall law did not apply to Senators, the activists sued, and the Jersey Supreme Court rejected their argument on the grounds that the petitions would be ineffectual no matter how many signatures they might receive.
For the final touch, Russtard wants attorney's fees in his
pro se case and for the case to be resolved by March '26 in anticipation of a referendum in November '26.
