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

[Mankirk]

Removing IFP is huge, because russtoleum would have to pay the $402. Not anything else, immediately, but it's a huge step.

Russ's IFP status was cited by the district Judge in lowering his sanctions, so there is a good chance this can have a greater impact - on future financial determinations as well as Russ potentially bringing up the first round of sanctions again.

Since Benett cited the addition of new witnesses as permissible under an amended complaint, I wonder if Hardin regrets allowing it since it seems to me the potential benefits from that didn't pan out, not yet at least.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Rusty himself stated at 219-9 that the RO [application] is relevant.
View attachment 7329980
Now he's swearing up and down that it isn't. The Magistrate rightly told him you don't get to protest the relevance of something by just refusing to produce when compelled.

Even though we won't get to see the documents (if he's even competent or wealthy enough to get hold of them), I'm sure Mr Hardin will find an extremely funny way to use it for Jersh's defence. Especially if South Twain avenue or whatever fictitious address is conspicuously absent from the application.

Reading that it's 100% clear it's not an actual listing of relevant documents, it's a petulant "oh you're going to list all the times I've been in court, what about the times were I TOTALLY LEGALLY RAPED MOON IN A DUMPSTER BEHIND THE ARBY'S? DID YOU ASK FOR THOSE? WHY NOT?"

Fucktard doesn't realize it don't work like that in court. It's not actually a tumblr blog, though he treats it like one.

Assuming Greer actually files something with the court, can Hardin move to have it unsealed, assuming that there's no real reason why it should be sealed?

He could, but it's likely not worth it as it's a discretion thing. More of a "let the judge see it and decide if russ is being a retard".

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Assuming Greer actually files something with the court, can Hardin move to have it unsealed, assuming that there's no real reason why it should be sealed?

Ordinarily, but given the Magistrate ordered Greer to put it as "Attorney's eyes only", any contention would be pointless.

 

[Rabid Weasels]

I think the RO application includes a full retelling of a bunch of plights and that's why he doesn't want to produce. Probably an explanation about how he shouldn't be subject to ridicule for claiming he has a right to rape women, maybe a retelling if the Katy Perry assistant saga, etc.

 

[DJ Grelle]

I'm not grasping why it would cause undue suffering, but I understand why Greer would make the claim -- to try and avoid having his bullshit allegations subjected to scrutiny

But that's easy: Russtard being scrutinized is the undue suffering.

 

[Sneed Force One]

Rusty himself stated at 219-9 that the RO [application] is relevant.

Now he's swearing up and down that it isn't. The Magistrate rightly told him you don't get to protest the relevance of something by just refusing to produce when compelled

I hope Hardin gets another opportunity to present this. This wasn't a "typo" by shitlips. The entire sentence structure is antagonising Hardin about it.

 

[Right To Bear Blarms]

Will Russ assume that since the judge told him to file it as "For Attorney's Eyes Only" that it'll automatically be marked that way even if he doesn't file it that way?
I guess we'll find out when it shows up on PACER and Russ shits up the docket for the next 2 months complaining about it showing up publicly.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

I can't believe this has to be stated AGAIN.

STOP POSTING YOUR RETARD-ASS THEORIES ON THE BEST WAYS FOR RUSS TO GET NULL INTO TROUBLE. STOP GIVING RUSS IDEAS. FUCKING HELL.

This is so incredibly wrong and I'm tired of it. As much as I like this site I enjoy justice even more because if it can happen to Russ then it can happen to me. What justice does Russ have? He's in this all alone and Null has both a lawyer who's already paid for and an entire website of people helping him with legal advice for free? You gonna tell me that's fair? It's unseemly and obscene to deny Russ help. If I were Russ I would bring this to the judge's attention IMMEDIATELY. The judge cannot possibly know how much struggle Russ has compared to Null who has multiple people coming up with strategy for free. If I were Russ, I would INUNDATE the clerk with detailed explanations of what is going on and screenshots of what is possibly interference, possibly even torturous interference, done by Null and his administrative staff! No judge in his or her right mind would rule against Russ if they knew that he was being actively denied legal help on Null's own website while accepting his own! If I were Russ, I would bring this to attention before the deadline unfairly set by the judge. This is a priority, number one issue and it should not be ignored.

We used to be a country of rules. I'm saddened and sickened to see how far we have fallen.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Will Russ assume that since the judge told him to file it as "For Attorney's Eyes Only" that it'll automatically be marked that way even if he doesn't file it that way?
I guess we'll find out when it shows up on PACER and Russ shits up the docket for the next 2 months complaining about it showing up publicly.

I'm going to assume and I'm going to hope that the judge let the clerk know that if russtard emails him something to file, to check with him first on this one.

As far as the farms are concerned, this alleged document is the same as CP (court proceedings) and should be deleted immediately if posted.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Ordinarily, but given the Magistrate ordered Greer to put it as "Attorney's eyes only", any contention would be pointless.

This is just spitballing, but if the Magistrate does get it, and finds it... lets say "lacking in a need for confidentiality," can he declare the SPO / For Attorney's Eyes Only thing invalid after the fact?

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

But that's easy: Russtard being scrutinized is the undue suffering.

 

[AnOminous]

Lastly, I've forgotten why this is even important in a copyright case anyway?

It isn't really. It's only marginally relevant as to the issue of Russhole's good faith and honesty, and really only cumulative on that issue, as Russhole has done plenty of blatant lying in the instant case itself, as the judge has noted.

The SPO doesn't automatically result in sealing if such a designation is opposed, and the presumption is against it. So presumably Hardin could file something to contest the designation. I don't think it's worth wandering off into the weeds when, for a change, things are finally going reasonably well.

The only reason this even turned into an issue at the hearing was Russhole tarding so hard he got slapped with a motion to compel because of his ineptitude and tard rage at being ordered to do something. Nobody even knew about this bullshit TRO before Ratface Genius brought it up.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Written order re:Hearing

 

[mindlessobserver]

Still can't believe Rusty actually told the judge TWICE that he could afford to pay the fees. He didn't just walk off that cliff, he walked off it loony tunes style complete with the floating. Pure kino.

 

[DHugo]

Still can't believe Rusty actually told the judge TWICE that he could afford to pay the fees. He didn't just walk off that cliff, he walked off it loony tunes style complete with the floating. Pure kino.

Poor niggas can't comprehend real playas

 

[The Un-Clit]

This is just spitballing, but if the Magistrate does get it, and finds it... lets say "lacking in a need for confidentiality," can he declare the SPO / For Attorney's Eyes Only thing invalid after the fact?

In Canada they can, as happened to Jonny "Dances with Lolsuits" Yaniv when a bunch of documents he filed under an SPO were deemed not protected and revealed. The media (and the Farms) had a field day with that one.

Though I don't know for sure what the US law is in this regard, both countries legal systems are based on British Common Law and are very similar in most things.

I would guess yes, but a real lawfag would have to answer to be sure.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This is just spitballing, but if the Magistrate does get it, and finds it... lets say "lacking in a need for confidentiality," can he declare the SPO / For Attorney's Eyes Only thing invalid after the fact?

He likely can, but probably isn't required to

I'd like to point out that the Judge did the same thing as every poster here, and also got confused about what he ordered at the hearing.


Well, I guess Russ can't fulfill this new order then.

 

[Excited Eraser]

He likely can, but probably isn't required to

I'd like to point out that the Judge did the same thing as every poster here, and also got confused about what he ordered at the hearing.
View attachment 7330295

Well, I guess Russ can't fulfill this new order then.

Did either the judge or Russ explicitly refer to the application rather than the actual RO in the hearing (I wasn't there)? If not, maybe the judge really believes the RO exists rather than a rejected application?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

This is just spitballing, but if the Magistrate does get it, and finds it... lets say "lacking in a need for confidentiality," can he declare the SPO / For Attorney's Eyes Only thing invalid after the fact?

A judge can do damn near anything he wants to, and there's little you can do about it.

But I would suspect that unless there was "deep pressing need" he'd not bother, as it could create an actionable appeal (for the insane) and leaving it "hidden" doesn't harm anyone.

I suspect that the judge will accept a SPO-delivered copy of the application with the refusal in place of the order. I also suspect the judge is specifically copying the wording of Russ's original email - someone should check that. I don't know if the RO being refused is "officially entered into ebidance" yet.

 

[waffle]

Ordinarily, but given the Magistrate ordered Greer to put it as "Attorney's eyes only", any contention would be pointless.

I'm not so sure about that. The order seemed to contemplate the review of any marked materials as to the propriety of the marking. I think he just wanted to remove any and all excuses just to get it out the door. Now I do think he might leave this particular document sealed because it was sealed at the source, but I think he would have said that about literally anything just to remove any excuse Greer has to not produce.