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

[Harvey Danger]

I think the judge might go down that route if only to create as many reasons for dismissal as possible that an appeals court won't touch it because even if they hate Null, it's too much of a mess for them to "fix" without overturning a lot of existing precedent or contravening established law. At one point the judge might have assumed that the easiest path forward was to get this case to trial, but Greer's complete retardation derailed that train months ago

Whether intentionally or not, Hardin has now shoved the judge into facing down two paths of dismissal, with a third to come.

Spoiler: Litigation super highway: off-ramps

Choose your own adventure:

1. Re-litigating the very beginnings of this 5 year old suit: unsealing ECF 1 for IFP fraud, fighting over ECF 15 and over jurisdiction. He also wants to re-argue the Appeals decision, if he can get the judge to let him.
2. Case ending-sanctions for Greer's inexcusable lies and fuck-ups
3. To come: boring old summary judgement on the merits, if discovery ever completes

Hardin's under-advisement Motion to Dismiss is on path #1, argued on the basis of the FAC re-opening everything. Before Russ started lying about meetings and finances, I thought the judge wouldn't let Hardin have a do-over, even if it's technically allowable. Now Hardin has stronger grounds on the IFP fraud, but this still seems like an annoying path for the judge and a higher risk of return on appeal.

Path #2 is still developing. Through a series of unforced errors, Russ has been stacking up sanctionable activity in some of the worst areas for him. A tard-shielding judge who doesn't want to rewind time 5 years to smack Greer on technicalities, may be more willing to smack Greer for raw stupidity from the last month.

Path #3 isn't on the docket yet, my impression is that was what Hardin was originally maneuvering towards. The judge seemed to anticipate it being the main event during the November hearing. I've ranted about the "death march to trial" before, but the judge may simply be marching to summary judgement instead.

I think the judge doesn't want #1, had planned for #3, but is now facing down an unavoidable #2. Even with witness tampering and STEVE IS FUCKING DEAD, Russ still managed to put himself in even worse position over the last 30 days. I wouldn't have called #2 likely before the May 6th hearing; now I think it's turning into the next major phase of the suit.

The question is, does the judge prefer a death march to trial/SJ, no matter how many sanctions it costs his pet tard? Or does he prefer one of many fraud-related off-ramps?

I don't know the technicalities of multiple-cause dismissals. Can the judge pick his top 5 reasons to dismiss, and an appeal has to defeat all 5? Or does he have to pick one and just mention the others? We are nearing (or past) the point where "good reasons to dismiss" are in the double digits.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Im still surprised that Greee gets treated with such kids gloves even though he is ostensibly a paralegal. I guess court has mentally invalidated his educational and professional achievements.

I doubt the court has the slightest idea that Greee has a paralegal diploma or they wouldn't be nearly so easy on him. I think we are the only ones besides his family who do as he never mentions it in any of his legal pleadings.

Besides he fucks up basic legal things like the rules of discovery that any accredited paralegal would be assumed to know, the court would think he was taking the piss if he claimed he was.

 

[Terrifik]

Whether intentionally or not, Hardin has now shoved the judge into facing down two paths of dismissal, with a third to come.

Fully expecting #1 and expect supreme court do internet cutting rule later in year while case still going on with this case being cited.

 

[not william stenchever]

The judge took matters "under advisement" and he still hasn't said jack shit about it.

Can anyone think of a time where someone has used the phrase "taking it under advisement" where it does not ultimately mean "I'm just going to ignore this as fastidiously as I can"?

 

[AnOminous]

The question is, does the judge prefer a death march to trial/SJ, no matter how many sanctions it costs his pet tard? Or does he prefer one of many fraud-related off-ramps?

It's hard to know. Presumably these two clowns in robes have to know the only reason this case is even on their docket is some slurping, drooling idiot tricked a Florida Judge (the judicial version of a Florida Man) into retransferring the case back to them (in absolute defiance of all the rules), because this slurping, drooling liar claimed he had an "eager" witness who had, in fact, been rotting in the ground dead long before Russhole's claim.

Yet they're apparently okay with being incessantly punked by this slurping, drooling tard, tard guarding for him endlessly because "muh eeebil Nazi hate site" and similar shit.

They need to get their shit together and do their fucking jobs. At long last. After five fucking years of this fucking bullshit!

 

[Iron Hamster]

I doubt the court has the slightest idea that Greee has a paralegal diploma or they wouldn't be nearly so easy on him. I think we are the only ones besides his family who do as he never mentions it in any of his legal pleadings.

Besides he fucks up basic legal things like the rules of discovery that any accredited paralegal would be assumed to know, the court would think he was taking the piss if he claimed he was.

I think Harden has mentioned it and it found it's way into a filing one way or another

 

[AnOminous]

I think Harden has mentioned it and it found it's way into a filing one way or another

Hardin has repeatedly emphasized that this isn't Russtard's first rodeo.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

I think the judge doesn't want #1, had planned for #3, but is now facing down an unavoidable #2. Even with witness tampering and STEVE IS FUCKING DEAD, Russ still managed to put himself in even worse position over the last 30 days. I wouldn't have called #2 likely before the May 6th hearing; now I think it's turning into the next major phase of the suit.

I think the door will be opened enough for route #1 to be argued by Hardin, but the case will ultimately be ended due to route #2, possibly for something that has yet to occur. I think the goal is that when the case is dismissed (for whatever reason) to have at least five other reasons that the case could have been reasonably been dismissed for, but that the court does not opine further on. That's a sufficiently poisoned chalice for any appeals judge to want to avoid touching.

Hardin has repeatedly emphasized that this isn't Russtard's first rodeo.

He's pointed out that Greer has been involved in a lot of litigation, and even insinuated that it was bogus (hint, hint) but I don't know if he's pointed out that Greer ought to know better as he has a paralegal degree/certificate/whatever. I don't think it's the sort of thing worth putting in a motion though and would work better as something to throw out during oral arguments before the judge so that Russ can affirm it immediately and perhaps make the judge's eyebrow twitch uncontrollably. After everything that's happened in the last month, I think puts nice ribbon on the case for judge bowtie so that he understands what he must do.

 

[obsdj]

I don't know if he's pointed out that Greer ought to know better as he has a paralegal degree/certificate/whatever. I don't think it's the sort of thing worth putting in a motion though and would work better as something to throw out during oral arguments before the judge so that Russ can affirm it immediately and perhaps make the judge's eyebrow twitch uncontrollably.

If we do have another motions hearing after all this, it’d be great for Hardin to bring it up then.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

This is always a disciplinary matter here in the UK. Client funds go into a client account. Touch them at your peril.

The problem isn’t what to do with client’s funds. That’s simple enough: put it in a lawyers trust account. It’s what to do when they’re no longer the client’s funds, or there’s a dispute over whether they’re the client’s funds, or there’s a question over how much is no longer the client’s funds, or multiple people claim a right to the funds.

 

[Swole McPole]

The problem isn’t what to do with client’s funds. That’s simple enough

You'd think so, but every year, lawyers get struck off or suspended for moving funds they aren't supposed to be spending. I'd have thought that if there was some dispute over entitlement, you'd take it to court. It's not like lawyers need to pay extortionate lawyer rates if something needs clarifying.

I don't know if he's pointed out that Greer ought to know better as he has a paralegal degree/certificate/whatever

I've also noticed Hardin's reticence when it comes down to reminding the court of Greer's training as a paralegal. It was notable to me because if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't be able to stop myself pointing it out at every available opportunity. I think I'd decided it was another example of Hardin's being a class professional act and attempting to treat Greer like a colleague whenever possible, rather than like the retarded moron he actually is.

It's not as though Greer is a paralegal any more, is it. He did the training, worked for a very short while and then was fired and could never get hired again. So he's not really a paralegal -- if anything, he's a failed paralegal. I'd hoped Hardin might find a way to bring up the circumstances of his firing when trying to get his history as a stalker into the court record, but he doesn't seem inclined to bring it up at every available opportunity. As I said, I couldn't stop myself, but I'm aware it'd make me look petty after the first couple of mentions.

 

[HackerX]

I've also noticed Hardin's reticence when it comes down to reminding the court of Greer's training as a paralegal.

He's busy reminding the court of something even more important. Namely, reminding the court Russ was busy talking about prostitution and brothels with a city council during the May 6 hearing. Repeatedly reminding the court that Plaintiff Greee is/was a paralegal and should know better doesn't nearly chap Plaintiff Greee's ass as much as Harden reminding the court that Plaintiff Greee was prioritizing his prostitution pipe dream over his lawsuit.

 

[Napoleon III]

death march to trial

The thing about Death-Marches is you either get to where you are going or you die. Does anyone here think Greer is capable of getting his case to trial?

I will say the spergouts that will happen if this case does get dismissed after all that has happened will be absolutely legendary. Especially if Greer has to tap into his hooker fund.

Imagine if Greer did the "I don't have any money to pay you because I spent it already" because he spent it all on hookers. There are good things waiting in the future of this case.

 

[DavidS877]

Does anyone here think Greer is capable of getting his case to trial?

Fuck no. The little bit of discovery he did was totally fucked. Then he tried to add parties and make an amended complaint and fucked up the timeline more. With the ebidance we know he has even if it doesn't get dismissed 6 different ways in the next few months I don't think it survives summary judgement even if he manages to not screw up Discovery 2 Electric Boogaloo and get it dismissed as a sanction.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

It's not as though Greer is a paralegal any more, is it. He did the training, worked for a very short while and then was fired and could never get hired again. So he's not really a paralegal -- if anything, he's a failed paralegal. I'd hoped Hardin might find a way to bring up the circumstances of his firing when trying to get his history as a stalker into the court record, but he doesn't seem inclined to bring it up at every available opportunity. As I said, I couldn't stop myself, but I'm aware it'd make me look petty after the first couple of mentions.

Is paralegal an actual "thing" or just a job title? E.g., does a lawyer HAVE to hire someone certified as a paralegal or could they hire any random asshole from this thread as a paralegal? If it's the second, it makes sense; the government wouldn't really give a shit.

(In nursing a nurse AND a certified nursing assistant are both "things" that are tracked and certified, but I don't think that's true of paralegals.)

 

[FamicomGorby]

Is paralegal an actual "thing" or just a job title? E.g., does a lawyer HAVE to hire someone certified as a paralegal or could they hire any random asshole from this thread as a paralegal? If it's the second, it makes sense; the government wouldn't really give a shit.

(In nursing a nurse AND a certified nursing assistant are both "things" that are tracked and certified, but I don't think that's true of paralegals.)

From a quick search it looks likes paralegals in most states don't actually need a degree or license of any kind but law firms typically won't hire anyone who doesn't have a degree or experience.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

From a quick search it looks likes paralegals in most states don't actually need a degree or license of any kind but law firms typically won't hire anyone who doesn't have a degree or experience.

Then it makes sense that Hardin doesn't mention it; it's much more powerful to say "Greee should know this, he got told by this court in ECF XX, and also in his four other cases that got dismissed for him being a fuckhead."

 

[Kiwi Lime Pie]

From a quick search it looks likes paralegals in most states don't actually need a degree or license of any kind but law firms typically won't hire anyone who doesn't have a degree or experience.

At least one community college in my part of Kiwi Land has an Associates Degree program for aspiring paralegals. RG's certificate comes from what seems to be a diploma mill at best based on what was discussed in regular thread.

if anything, he's a failed paralegal.

Agreed. Between RG's educational background (or lack thereof) and his behavior when he was supposed to be on the job, he pretty much blackballed himself right out of the field.

E.g., does a lawyer HAVE to hire someone certified as a paralegal or could they hire any random asshole from this thread as a paralegal?

It's best to have someone who went through a paralegal program so that they understand their role and know how to effectively and correctly perform the legal research and other behind the scenes tasks that comes with the position.

it's much more powerful to say "Greee should know this, he got told by this court in ECF XX, and also in his four other cases that got dismissed for him being a fuckhead."

This approach makes more sense because it puts the onus on the court to heed what's been memorialized in the filings to date. Also, harping on RG's status as a failed, washed-up paralegal - as true as it may be - could likely be seen by the court as unnecessarily antagonistic.

 

[Thoughtcrime84]

Assuming that Null gets awarded money at the end of this process, amount that the broke retard will never be able to pay, could he just parcel the debt into packages and sell it to alogs, so they can have their fun looking into (and garnishing) Greere finances?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Assuming that Null gets awarded money at the end of this process, amount that the broke retard will never be able to pay, could he just parcel the debt into packages and sell it to alogs, so they can have their fun looking into (and garnishing) Greere finances?

Can you imagine him selling the debt to a half dozen debt collectors, all of whom would be constantly going after Greeeeeeeeeee until he paid up?