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

[AnOminous]

He's been declared a vexatious defendant.

He actually hasn't yet. That's Stebbins. He is under no pre-filing injunction.

 

[DavidS877]

He's been declared a vexatious defendant.

He actually hasn't yet. That's Stebbins. He is under no pre-filing injunction.

"He" in this case is Null, the vexatious defendant, according to Greer.

 

[Pat Fried Rice]

"He" in this case is Null, the vexatious defendant, according to Greer.

I had to re-read it a couple times myself

 

[Harvey Danger]

"He" in this case is Null, the vexatious defendant, according to Greer.

I was indeed referring to Joshua "Well-oiled" Moon, ooperator of Kiwi "The Harm" Farms, a website.

 

[Terrifik]

"He" in this case is Null, the vexatious defendant, according to Greer.

That's a grave misunderstanding.
Null only fought to clear his name from 3 lawsuits.
Vexatious part would be null trying to clear his name using legal means on form drama happenings.

 

[Null]

He's making a joke mate

 

[Pat Fried Rice]

He's making a joke mate

Sir, this is 2024. Jokes are not halalowed, I need you to step into the social self-flagellation line at this time.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I chuckled at Vexatious Defendant. It really is apt. Everyone suing Null is very mad that he won't roll over and give them what they want. FFS, Acerthorne in his complaint asked the Court to issue an order barring Null from raising affirmative defenses.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

Meh I'm not worried about Stabby's suit.

If there is anyone on the planet who is capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory it's ole Mr. Stabby. He misleads in his briefs, he sometimes lies, he quotes bits of legalese out of context assuming the court will be too lazy to look up said legal statutes and he does everything he possible can to antagonize the court. From talking down the judge, using 26 point font to scream at the judge when he rules against him and filing brief after brief after brief after brief about the most stupid and mundane shit Stabby can come up with after 6 hours on Ask a Lawyer.com

Nah even if the court despises Jersh for his tranny killing website they will come to hate Mr Stabby more. After all this is a person so irredeemable and toxic he's never had a single friend in his whole life.

Compared to ole Acerthorn Greer is god-damn suave talking jive ass mutherfucker living it large.

There you go Russ-tard, there IS someone worse then you at the game of life. Congratu-fucking-lations.

 

[Black Spruce]

He's been declared a vexatious defendant.

This might actually be something that could potentially happen. You don't technically have to be the plaintiff to be labelled a vexatious litigant. If a judge considers Josh's motions to be unwarranted, burdensome, repetitive, frivilous, or engages in tactics the judge can interpret as obstructive or dilatory, or repeatedly appeals with what the judge considers unsubstantial or groundless arguments, then Josh could possibly be labelled a vexatious litigant. Sure all that stuff describes everything Russtard has been doing for many years, but the courts clearly don't care. Effectively defending yourself against frivilous bullshit can easily be interpreted as obstructive when the court has it out for you like they clearly do here. It would also be a good way for the court to put a stop on the use of the litigation fund.

 

[Pim Fortuyn]

This might actually be something that could potentially happen. You don't technically have to be the plaintiff to be labelled a vexatious litigant. If a judge considers Josh's motions to be unwarranted, burdensome, repetitive, frivilous, or engages in tactics the judge can interpret as obstructive or dilatory, or repeatedly appeals with what the judge considers unsubstantial or groundless arguments, then Josh could possibly be labelled a vexatious litigant. Sure all that stuff describes everything Russtard has been doing for many years, but the courts clearly don't care. Effectively defending yourself against frivilous bullshit can easily be interpreted as obstructive when the court has it out for you like they clearly do here. It would also be a good way for the court to put a stop on the use of the litigation fund.

This is dumb and horrible. That means it will happen. Just makes sense.

 

[Terence Trent D'ARPA]

In ECF 146, Mr. Hardin asks for an extension of time to file his replies. As someone who's been the whole team myself, I can relate:

Undersigned counsel is a solo practitioner with an extraordinarily challenging calendar this month. Counsel is presently in the process of returning from Texas for a dispositive civil hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and also has a similar dispositive civil hearing and a criminal trial scheduled in the state courts of Virginia thereafter, as well as a remote mediation for the U.S. district court for the Southern district of Texas, for which counsel is diligently preparing. In terms of competing obligations to make written submissions, undersigned counsel currently has civil briefs due August 8 and 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a separate civil appellate brief due on August 9 in the Virginia Court of Appeals. Undersigned counsel only today filed a dispositive civil brief in the New York County Supreme Court, and counsel also has competing deadlines related to the docketing of a new appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court extent the timeframe for mr. Moon to file his replies to the above filings by Mr. Greer through and including September 4, 2024.

 

[Kosher Salt]

In ECF 146, Mr. Hardin asks for an extension of time to file his replies.

Images:

Spoiler

I kinda want to think that he slipped this in as a dig about half of Russ's responses being filed late:



No objection to the incorrect certificates of service on those two responses yet though.

 

[306h4Ge5eJUJ]

In ECF 146, Mr. Hardin asks for an extension of time to file his replies. As someone who's been the whole team myself, I can relate:

I want Greer to object to this.

 

[AnOminous]

This might actually be something that could potentially happen. You don't technically have to be the plaintiff to be labelled a vexatious litigant. If a judge considers Josh's motions to be unwarranted, burdensome, repetitive, frivilous, or engages in tactics the judge can interpret as obstructive or dilatory, or repeatedly appeals with what the judge considers unsubstantial or groundless arguments, then Josh could possibly be labelled a vexatious litigant. Sure all that stuff describes everything Russtard has been doing for many years, but the courts clearly don't care. Effectively defending yourself against frivilous bullshit can easily be interpreted as obstructive when the court has it out for you like they clearly do here. It would also be a good way for the court to put a stop on the use of the litigation fund.

That's not really true. The federal fee shifting statute for "unreasonably and vexatiously" litigating, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, explicitly applies to attorneys, and there's a circuit split on whether it also applies to pro se litigants acting as their own attorneys. It also does not declare the attorney or the litigant to be vexatious as some permanent status, unlike state statutes or rules which explicitly do.

For instance, Utah's Rule 83:

(a) Definitions.

(1) The court may find a person to be a "vexatious litigant" if the person, with or without legal representation, including an attorney acting pro se, does any of the following:

(A) In the immediately preceding seven years, the person has filed at least five claims for relief, other than small claims actions, that have been finally determined against the person, and the person does not have within that time at least two claims, other than small claims actions, that have been finally determined in that person’s favor.

(B) After a claim for relief or an issue of fact or law in the claim has been finally determined, the person two or more additional times re-litigates or attempts to re-litigate the claim, the issue of fact or law, or the validity of the determination against the same party in whose favor the claim or issue was determined.

(C) In any action, the person three or more times does any one or any combination of the following:

(i) files unmeritorious pleadings or other papers,

(ii) files pleadings or other papers that contain redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter,

(iii) conducts unnecessary discovery or discovery that is not proportional to what is at stake in the litigation, or

(iv) engages in tactics that are frivolous or solely for the purpose of harassment or delay.

(D) The person purports to represent or to use the procedures of a court other than a court of the United States, a court created by the Constitution of the United States or by Congress under the authority of the Constitution of the United States, a tribal court recognized by the United States, a court created by a state or territory of the United States, or a court created by a foreign nation recognized by the United States.

Other vexlit statutes almost invariably specify that the vexlit is a serial plaintiff, not a defendant, and remedies generally include limitations on the ability to file new actions.

So under 1927, Hardin could be sanctioned (in theory since he has done nothing whatsoever that is sanctionable), but Null couldn't, except in some circuits if he were acting pro se.

In ECF 146, Mr. Hardin asks for an extension of time to file his replies. As someone who's been the whole team myself, I can relate:

According to the FRCP (Federal Rules of Clownlaw Procedure) this should be denied immediately and he should be sanctioned for even asking for it.

 

[Kiwi Lime Pie]

I kinda want to think that he slipped this in as a dig about half of Russ's responses being filed late:

I think the first paragraph also has a dig in it too: "Indeed, this Court recently extended the Plaintiff’s deadline for a period of approximately seven months, as set forth at ECF Nos. 136, 138, and 141."

I like the implication here that if the court is going to let the plaintiff have seven months worth of extra time to file briefs, an extra two weeks for the defense should be a non-issue.

I want Greer to object to this.

Assuming his mind isn't on hookers or celebrities right now, he may already be thinking up a seething objection to file in response as we speak.

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

In ECF 146, Mr. Hardin asks for an extension of time to file his replies. As someone who's been the whole team myself, I can relate:

For those who maybe haven't been paying close attention to this thread:

• Russell: even though he literally has nothing else to do with his time- asked for a 90 day extension (and got quite a bit more than that instead for free).
• Hardin: literally running around the country this month, managing several Federal cases at the circuit and appellate levels, as well as cases at the state level in two separate states- he only asked for 14 extra days.

Can you spot the difference?

I want Greer to object to this.

*bows head* Oh, please, Lord Baby Jesus, grant this prayer.

 

[FrancineCansMcGee]

IIRC, the judge kind of did a “Nuh-uh!” on the seven months thing in response to the objection so that dig may not be wise.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

Can you spot the difference?

Well, to be fair, Greer is a retard, whereas Hardin is a lawtist.

 

[The Un-Clit]

This will be interesting. The judge would be showing his bias to the point where Hardin would be well within his rights to ask the judge to recuse himself if he denies this extremely fair motion.