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

[Prokhor Zakharov]

It's interesting how rusty thinks that Hardin doing his job properly is somehow a sanctionable action...

 

[Irene and 22 others]

And either way, his reputation is completely fucked with the court. He's either a lying cheapskate or a lying dreamer.

Por que no los dos?

Whether it does or not, it calls into question his use of the courts, potentially (likely, okay realistically) as a means to harm and silence his critics, in much the same manner that vexatious litigant David Stebbins is wont to do.

Until the courts prove otherwise, I'm inclined to believe they will continue to bend over backwards to tardguard Greer. No it shouldn't be that way, yet here we are. I'm glad that Hardin is pressing this all the same, but it should have been obvious to the court long ago that this is what Russ was up to and I'm not seeing why this time they'll have had enough of his bullshit when they gave him a pass on it before. Maybe Hardin hopes that this continued bad behavior sways a teetering magistrate judge at the upcoming hearing, but if he mind wasn't made up already, I don't know if this changes it at all.

I'm suddenly wondering if Greer thinks just saying this in an email is enough to satisfy the 21-day service requirement for sanctions motions.

I think we all know the answer to that. We only need to wait for Greer to actually say as much in one of his future motions.

 

[RodgerDodger]

It's interesting how rusty thinks that Hardin doing his job properly is somehow a sanctionable action...

It's interesting how he completely fails to grasp that he is the moving party. He brought the matter and is responsible for prosecuting it. He's not allowed to say "I'm too busy to deal with this".

 

[lol cow supreme]

If Greer loses his IFP status how much is the case gonna cost him? I remember reading in one of his cases he didn't get IFP status because he had a job and the filing fee was $400.

Guess he's just got the choice of admit that his investors are all made up and that he cannot in fact buy a brothel or pay up.

Tad late but... Yes he would owe the original filing fee, which on the face of things doesn't seem so bad but would be funny for him to finally fork over some of his money for this bullshit lawsuit. Losing his IFP in this case would then be used in other cases he tries to file IFP, so he would have to fork over the $400 for each of those. Along with IFP status, it seems to carry some consideration when judges award sanctions. He's a sad pro se IFP, so the judge takes it easy on him and only awards $1000 sanction instead of the full $5000 documented fees.

Wouldn't it be something if the copyright in question, or really the plights in question, were of the LLC and not Russel Greer somehow? If i recall LLC's cannot appear pro se. Either way he is a rich business mogul with many assets that he should not be eligible for IFP, it should be looked upon as frivolous that someone with such resources would play the "I'm just a retarded pro se" card when clearly they are of means for an attorney. And since he has so much, really a $5000 sanction shouldn't be much of a burden at all!

 

[Harvey Danger]

Wouldn't it be something if the copyright in question, or really the plights in question, were of the LLC and not Russel Greer somehow? If i recall LLC's cannot appear pro se.

Not likely. The LLC was formed 2 years after the alleged copyright infringement, and isn't a party to the suit. The copyright certificates Russ provided in the complaint don't have the LLC on it, just him.

However, Russ is the only manager (other than his paid registered agent) listed on the LLC which claims to be able to buy a million dollar property. It's a reasonable conclusion that Russ himself has some money available to him, either as wages from the LLC or otherwise. Certainly plausible enough to warrant an investigation by the court or by any debtors.

 

[Harm]

>works multiple paying jobs
>chooses to pay tuition to attend school full-time
>owns and operates businesses
>courting investors to buy seven figures worth of property
>???
>"I couldn't afford a one-time filing fee in 2019 for a case I don't even intend to meaningfully litigate!"
>given lighter sanctions because of IFP status

Makes sense to me, what's your problem?

 

[jerkstore]

i have a lot of questions about a court’s formal review of a plaintiff’s IFP status. U_M, Anom, or any of our other legal kiwis, can you give us any insight on what that process looks like? does the court conduct the review in such a manner that the questions they ask and russell’s answers are filed as case documents? sorry if stupid questions.

edit: also - re: russ thinking hardin has “no other clients” - lawyers routinely work 60-80 hour workweeks, depending on their specialty. as russ has always wanted to be a really real lawyer, it’s fun that he thinks hardin punches in at 9 and punches out at 4 and is just using his free time to fuck with russell.

 

[JustSomeDong]

Oh, the meltdown over this will be glorious.

I've never been so excited over retarded legal filings!

 

[Thomas Talus]

i have a lot of questions about a court’s formal review of a plaintiff’s IFP status. U_M, Anom, or any of our other legal kiwis, can you give us any insight on what that process looks like? does the court conduct the review in such a manner that the questions they ask and russell’s answers are filed as case documents? sorry if stupid questions.

I don't know if it would be the specific answer for this case, as I have little experience with IFP issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if the court (if it did anything at all) gave Russ an order to appear and show cause why it should not be revoked.

 

[AnOminous]

i have a lot of questions about a court’s formal review of a plaintiff’s IFP status. U_M, Anom, or any of our other legal kiwis, can you give us any insight on what that process looks like?

Not really, it's almost up to the judge how to go about it, with very little room to challenge discretion. Another more interesting question is whether the judge will actually do the proper prescreening Hardin moved for here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.148809/gov.uscourts.utd.148809.258.0.pdf

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) "empowers" the court to screen complaints (and the new amended complaint is considered a new pleading for these purposes).

I'll note that the statute uses somewhat stronger language:

(2)Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court SHALL dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(A)the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B)the action or appeal—
(i)is frivolous or malicious;
(ii)fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii)seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

"Shall" is generally construed to mean a mandatory action.

(A) and (B)(i) and (B)(ii) apply. (ii) unfortunately may be foreclosed by the Tenth Circuit's dog's breakfast of an opinion, but whether the action was "frivolous or malicious" at the time of filing, it now is, as Russ has admitted he has no witnesses and no way of proving any of his allegations.

 

[jerkstore]

Not really, it's almost up to the judge how to go about it, with very little room to challenge discretion. Another more interesting question is whether the judge will actually do the proper prescreening Hardin moved for here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.148809/gov.uscourts.utd.148809.258.0.pdf

28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) "empowers" the court to screen complaints (and the new amended complaint is considered a new pleading for these purposes).

I'll note that the statute uses somewhat stronger language:

"Shall" is generally construed to mean a mandatory action.

(A) and (B)(i) and (B)(ii) apply. (ii) unfortunately may be foreclosed by the Tenth Circuit's dog's breakfast of an opinion, but whether the action was "frivolous or malicious" at the time of filing, it now is, as Russ has admitted he has no witnesses and no way of proving any of his allegations.

thank you! excellent info!

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Regarding screening of IFP complaint;

Mr. Hardin has pointed out that the 10th Circuit is in the minority in holding that the statute's mandatory language, is in fact, not mandatory. There are two helpful buts, however.

Our Magistrate disagrees. When rulling on such motions nearly two months ago, he labelled it a "requir[ment]". See: Tucker v. Greenwood Case No. 2:24-cv-00951-TS-JCB (D. Utah Feb 20, 2025) ("Whenever the court authorizes a party to proceed without payment of fees under the IFP Statute, the court is required to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines [that (A) or (B) applies]"), also Yoe v. Salt Lake City Police Department et al, Case No. 2:2024cv00933 (D. Utah Feb 10, 2025) (same)

Note that he only starts citing the statute after the word "required", implying he is not merely copying the statute.

Even more interestingly, in dicta back in February, the 10th Circuit also called it an "obligation[]", though it did not elaborate. See: Moore v. Hebert, 365 (10th Cir. 2025) ("On the defendants' motions, and pursuant to its own obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court dismissed Mr. Moore's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."

All three cases dealt with pro se litigants.

 

[jerkstore]

Regarding screening of IFP complaint;

Mr. Hardin has pointed out that the 10th Circuit is in the minority in holding that the statute's mandatory language, is in fact, not mandatory. There are two helpful buts, however.

Our Magistrate disagrees. When rulling on such motions nearly two months ago, he labelled it a "requir[ment]". See: Tucker v. Greenwood Case No. 2:24-cv-00951-TS-JCB (D. Utah Feb 20, 2025) ("Whenever the court authorizes a party to proceed without payment of fees under the IFP Statute, the court is required to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines [that (A) or (B) applies]"), also Yoe v. Salt Lake City Police Department et al, Case No. 2:2024cv00933 (D. Utah Feb 10, 2025) (same)

Note that he only starts citing the statute after the word "required", implying he is not merely copying the statute.

Even more interestingly, in dicta back in February, the 10th Circuit also called it an "obligation[]", though it did not elaborate. See: Moore v. Hebert, 365 (10th Cir. 2025) ("On the defendants' motions, and pursuant to its own obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court dismissed Mr. Moore's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim."

All three cases dealt with pro se litigants.

you are the hero we need and do not deserve. or however that quote goes.

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

you are the hero we need and do not deserve. or however that quote goes.

He is UM from I Have No Mouth And I Must Litigate.
Ask him how much he hates Russell.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Our Magistrate disagrees. When rulling on such motions nearly two months ago, he labelled it a "requir[ment]". See: Tucker v. Greenwood Case No. 2:24-cv-00951-TS-JCB (D. Utah Feb 20, 2025) ("Whenever the court authorizes a party to proceed without payment of fees under the IFP Statute, the court is required to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines [that (A) or (B) applies]"), also Yoe v. Salt Lake City Police Department et al, Case No. 2:2024cv00933 (D. Utah Feb 10, 2025) (same)

Note that he only starts citing the statute after the word "required", implying he is not merely copying the statute.

To cover all my bases, here's a case where he specifically talks about the screening for poverty fraud. He uses the exact same language. See: Rodriguez v. Power 2:23-cv-00438 at 8 (D. Utah Jun 21, 2024) ("Under the IFP Statute, the court is required to dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, among other things, that the allegation of poverty is untrue.")

As it relates to frivolity, "And under § 1915(e)(2), a court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the case is frivolous or fails to state a claim." Johnson v. Moon (10th Circuit 2022), and though the statutory interpretation is helpful, I must note that the case more broadly dealt with § 1915A(a).

 

[AnOminous]

Johnson v. Moon (10th Circuit 2022)

Lmao. Of course. Totally different Moon btw. We are still, however, obviously living in a simulation.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Regarding screening of IFP complaint;

I try not to be one of those "OMG send this to Hardin right now" posters, but this cite would be extremely useful for Hardin to have in the upcoming hearing.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

It's interesting that the "lose IFP" = case dismissed. I suspect that even if it's not allowed, the "lose IFP" scenario in this case will just be "from now on, slip the court a tenner if you file some shit" or something.

However, if they DO dismiss it, I eagerly await whatever machinations the appellate court comes up with to insist that "Shall" actually means "never".

 

[Bogliacci]

I just love how Russ thought it was a good idea to go around revealing he's actually the head of a group of investors worth millions in official reports and such. Harden was supposed to be a neutral 3rd party that helps him win, not a jerk that digs up all of his antics!

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I try not to be one of those "OMG send this to Hardin right now" posters, but this cite would be extremely useful for Hardin to have in the upcoming hearing.

I am positive that he reads the thread if for no other reason than the fact that he introduced the Police report I uncovered on the same day I posted it here. It has the same print out date and name and everything.

It's interesting that the "lose IFP" = case dismissed.

Generally (and in particular according to the statute, the court is under no obligation to entertain fraud on it).

"from now on, slip the court a tenner if you file some shit" or something.

That's not how the filing fees work as has been discussed already in the previous page.