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

[Thomas Talus]

So Russ isn't testifying and neither are his witnesses. He's going to present what at trial, exactly?

Where did he say he's not testifying?

If he actually did, then we may be in MSJ territory.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

Will we next see him withdraw his suit?

Virginia needs an answer to her Santa question.

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

Not even an I'm.
Wow.

 

[Exit fullscreen button]

Where did he say he's not testifying?

If he actually did, then we may be in MSJ territory.

I guess this part?

 

[AnOminous]

I think the current record holder is Ariana Grande? $1500 if I recall correctly. That one he just showed up late and didn't show cause.

Also remember the dumb sped thought Ariana Grande was going to have to show up personally. All that showed up was a $1,500 bill for fees for wasting everyone's time with his gourd-headed retardation.

I guess Hardin finally walked him through how the discovery process works.

My personal guess is his dad and brother served him up a ration of shit about how the FUCK was he stupid enough to try to drag them into his "plights."

Where did he say he's not testifying?

If he actually did, then we may be in MSJ territory.

Tbh I'd rather see that after any currently ripe dispositive motions are ruled on. A dismissal with prejudice for something procedural and within the court's discretion is preferable to any ruling that raises matters of law.

 

[Pee Cola]

I can hear Russhole furiously mashing his keyboard from here, and I live in the Southern hemisphere.

Russhole's next filing is going to be pure kino. I can feel it in my bones.

 

[Magnificent Penis]

I can hear Russhole furiously mashing his keyboard from here, and I live in the Southern hemisphere.

Russhole's next filing is going to be pure kino. I can feel it in my bones.

The last filing was done jointly with Hardin though. Greer co-signed it. This is not something Hardin is imposing on him, he agreed to it.

 

[WelperHelper99]

My personal guess is his dad and brother served him up a ration of shit about how the FUCK was he stupid enough to try to drag them into his "plights."

That is exactly what happened. He basically has cut them off for years, but NOW he comes to them for his retard shit? Fuck you Rusty, we aren't helping you spiral into retardation.

 

[waffle]

View attachment 6773316
I guess this part?

He's also never even attempted to file the plaintiffs expected testimony part of the rule 26 disclosures.

 

[Pee Cola]

The last filing was done jointly with Hardin though. Greer co-signed it. This is not something Hardin is imposing on him, he agreed to it.

True, but it won't stop Russhole from trying to get the last word in.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

a federal judge will have to read the allegation that the defendant's council drew a picture of plaintiff

paint me like one of your French girls

 

[Kiwi Lime Pie]

An interesting thought that just occurred to me: Hardin apparently sent around $84 dollars to Mr. Nathan Greer and Mr. Scott Greer to cover for "deposition fees" (that I don't know what they are about, honestly).

Not sure if you're asking about the fees, but courts generally allow for witnesses to receive a nominal payment to cover time/travel for testifying - usually a small fixed amount plus mileage. My layman's guess is RG might have to reimburse Hardin for this expense if his shenanigans lead to the depositions not taking place.

If you're asking why there are to be deposed, I suspect Hardin wants to do so to ascertain they have no relevant testimony to offer in the case.

 

[obsdj]

I'm confused. The stipulation is that those witnesses have no info (1), but it doesn't explicitly say they won't be testifying, just that Greer doesn't intend to call any OTHER witnesses (2). Point 3 says if he tries to call any OTHER witnesses apart from the two who have no info, the stipulation is void.

Is it tacitly understood that since those two have no info, they cannot or will not be called as witnesses? If so, it seems unwise (at least with this plaintiff) not to say so in plain language.

 

[GrandDriveAuto]

The bamboon lost the case right here. He has no witnesses nor documents that show evidence of what he says. Since he cannot prove anything he says is true with any sort of evidence this case is literally unwinnable, keeping this going is just wasting everybody´s time and money.

 

[StinkySnack]

I'm confused. The stipulation is that those witnesses have no info (1), but it doesn't explicitly say they won't be testifying, just that Greer doesn't intend to call any OTHER witnesses (2). Point 3 says if he tries to call any OTHER witnesses apart from the two who have no info, the stipulation is void.

Is it tacitly understood that since those two have no info, they cannot or will not be called as witnesses? If so, it seems unwise (at least with this plaintiff) not to say so in plain language.

The subpoenas for Scott and Nathan were withdrawn. That's effectively saying they have withdrawn as witnesses. I believe they have to be part of the discovery process to testify at trial.

 

[kcbbq]

I'm confused. The stipulation is that those witnesses have no info (1), but it doesn't explicitly say they won't be testifying, just that Greer doesn't intend to call any OTHER witnesses (2). Point 3 says if he tries to call any OTHER witnesses apart from the two who have no info, the stipulation is void.

Is it tacitly understood that since those two have no info, they cannot or will not be called as witnesses? If so, it seems unwise (at least with this plaintiff) not to say so in plain language.

If they have no info they have no info. If Russel calls them as witnesses he won't be able to ask them anything because no discovery was done, so I assume everything is moot.

 

[not william stenchever]

Since he cannot prove anything he says is true with any sort of evidence this case is literally unwinnable

The broken justice system, uh, finds a way.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I can't believe Russel actually signed a piece of paper that say's he's not a witness in his own copyright lolsuit.

By this time Monday I guarantee he will be trying to reverse this and say that Hardin tricked him.

 

[AnOminous]

Is it tacitly understood that since those two have no info, they cannot or will not be called as witnesses? If so, it seems unwise (at least with this plaintiff) not to say so in plain language.

If you don't disclose witnesses in your FRCP 26 filings (or promptly update those disclosures upon discovering another witness), you can't call them at trial. So he's basically castrated his case even if it isn't just dismissed for his fatally defective disclosure.

Not sure if you're asking about the fees, but courts generally allow for witnesses to receive a nominal payment to cover time/travel for testifying - usually a small fixed amount plus mileage.

It's usually strictly specified by statute, and much like the fee for jury duty, statutes that haven't been updated since the 19th Century so they're pathetic. However, it's absolutely necessary to establish jurisdiction over the party to tender payment.

I once got a deposition subpoena and ignored it. Apparently they actually showed up and tried to hold it and threw a huge fit to the court about me not showing up. Guess what they hadn't done?

I could have told them but fuck those people.

 

[GrandDriveAuto]

I can't believe Russel actually signed a piece of paper that say's he's not a witness in his own copyright lolsuit.

By this time Monday I guarantee he will be trying to reverse this and say that Hardin tricked him.

Doesnt this mean that he cant even testify on his own suit?