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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Greer v. Moon 2:20-cv-00647 — District Court, D. Utah

  • Docket No.
    2:20-cv-00647
  • Court
    District Court, D. Utah
  • Filed
    Sep 15, 2020
  • Terminated
    Apr 22, 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:0501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    Aug 6, 2024

Parties (4)

Parties
Joshua Moon, Kiwi Farms, Lolcow, LLC, Russell G. Greer

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 30)

# Date Description Filing
Aug 6, 2024 Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett. (kpf)
113 May 15, 2024 ORDER of USCA Supreme Court Circuit as to 45 Notice of Appeal, filed by Russell G. Greer. Supreme Court order dated 05/13/2024 denying certiorari. (jrj) (Entered: 05/16/2024)
112 Apr 28, 2024 NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL that case has been transferred to Northern District of Floridia via electronic given case number 3:24-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB. (nl) (Entered: 04/29/2024)
111 Apr 25, 2024 Report on the Final Decision of an action mailed to the Register of Copyrights Office. (kpf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/26/2024: # 1 Copy Right Form) (kpf). (Entered: 04/26/2024) PDF
110 Apr 25, 2024 NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL that case has been transferred to Northern District of Florida. (kpf) (Entered: 04/26/2024)

Greer v. Moon 21-4128 — Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

  • Docket No.
    21-4128
  • Court
    Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
  • Filed
    Oct 26, 2021
  • Nature of Suit
    3820 Copyright
  • Last Filing
    Oct 15, 2023

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 11)

# Date Description Filing
10010936535 Oct 15, 2023 Case termination for opinion
10010794067 Jan 5, 2023 [10967591] Calendar Acknowledgment Form filed by Joshua Moon. Served on 01/06/2023. Manner of Service: email. [21-4128] GGS [Entered: 01/06/2023 12:15 PM]
10010791785 Jan 2, 2023 [10966429] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying Appellees’ Motion to Waive Oral Argument. The oral argument set for January 18, 2023 in Denver, Colorado remains set as scheduled. Counsel for Defendants - Appellees shall file a calendar acknowledgment form by January 5, 2023. Served on 01/03/2023. [21-4128] [Entered: 01/03/2023 10:16 AM]
10010776728 Dec 1, 2022 [10959168] Response filed by Russell G. Greer to Appellees' Motion to Waive Oral Argument. Served on 12/02/2022. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required privacy and virus certifications: Yes. [21-4128] AG [Entered: 12/02/2022 12:34 AM]
10010776140 Nov 30, 2022 [10958830] Calendar Acknowledgment Form filed by Russell G. Greer. Served on 12/01/2022. Manner of Service: email. [21-4128] GWK [Entered: 12/01/2022 07:49 AM]

GREER v. MOON 3:24-cv-00122 — District Court, N.D. Florida

  • Docket No.
    3:24-cv-00122
  • Court
    District Court, N.D. Florida
  • Filed
    Mar 19, 2024
  • Terminated
    Jun 10, 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    Oct 16, 2024

Parties (4)

Parties
RUSSELL G GREER, JOSHUA MOON, LOLCOW LLC, KIWI FARMS

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 30)

# Date Description Filing
Oct 16, 2024 ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE ZACHARY C BOLITHO notified that action is needed Re: 132 Mail Returned. (mah)
132 Oct 15, 2024 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Russell G. Greer re: 128 ORDER. Order mailed to 1155 S. Twain Avenue, Suite 108420, Las Vegas, NV 89169. (Attachment: #1 Notice of Returned Mail). (mah) (Entered: 10/17/2024) PDF
131 Jul 10, 2024 AO 121 Copyright Case Notification of order entered. Copy sent to the Register of Copyrights. U.S. Copyright Office, 101 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000. (adf) (Entered: 07/11/2024) PDF
130 Jun 10, 2024 ACKNOWLEDGMENT re 129 Case Transferred Out to Another District. Case transferred from Florida Northern has been opened in District of Utah as case 2:24cv00421, filed 06/11/2024. (jfj) (Entered: 06/13/2024) PDF
129 Jun 10, 2024 Interdistrict Transfer to the District of Utah. (jfj) (Entered: 06/11/2024)

Greer v. Moon 2:24-cv-00421 — District Court, D. Utah

  • Docket No.
    2:24-cv-00421
  • Court
    District Court, D. Utah
  • Filed
    Jun 10, 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:0501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Plaintiff
  • Last Filing
    Apr 27, 2026

Parties (4)

Parties
Russell G. Greer, Lolcow LLC, Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 50)

# Date Description Filing
473 Apr 27, 2026 RESPONSE re 468 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision 460 to District Court filed by Russell G. Greer. (alf) (Entered: 04/28/2026) 1
472 Apr 14, 2026 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 465 Response re 462 Order filed by Russell G. Greer. (alf) (Entered: 04/15/2026) 1
471 Apr 14, 2026 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 469 MOTION to Strike 464 Answer to Counterclaim and Memorandum in Support; MOTION to deem factual allegations admitted filed by Plaintiff Russell G. Greer. (alf) (Entered: 04/15/2026) 1
470 Apr 13, 2026 Modification of Docket re 469 MOTION to Strike : Error: The document is requesting two possible reliefs. An event should be chosen for each relief filer is requesting, including motions in the alternative. Correction: MOTION to deem factual allegations admitted added to the entry. No further action is needed. (alf) (Entered: 04/15/2026)
469 Apr 13, 2026 MOTION to Strike 464 Answer to Counterclaim and alternative MOTION to deem factual allegations admitted and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon, Counter Claimants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. Motions referred to Jared C. Bennett.(Hardin, Matthew). Added MOTION on 4/15/2026 (alf). (Entered: 04/14/2026) 1
Bright and early on the 30th. Well-played, Mr. Hardin.

I'm assuming he had this drafted weeks ago and could have submitted it previously. Part of me wonders if he did so early in the day because he knows it will cause Greer to sperg out and immediately rush to explain to the court instead of doing other things that he really ought to be doing today.

Gree does not get to respond to this document, the process goes motion to dismiss (Hardin) -> response (Greee) -> reply (what Hardin filed today).

Do you think that will stop Russ? I don't think we'll see a response to this from Greee before tomorrow, but we should see another status report from Hardin later this afternoon.
 
I think IFP in the appeals court is an entirely separate application / determination. Although I would expect Hardin to object and bring up the recent IFP status change.
You have to file a notice of intent to appeal with the district court and you file your motion to appeal IFP with the district court as well. It is a bit confusing you'd think you'd file with the appeal court but no.

I thought this was the case and I wanted to look it up to be sure so here is the form you need to file an appeal IFP.
1751299778859.webp
So in short Greer would have to ask the district court to be IFP which just determined that he wasn't IFP.

BTW in case anyone thinks this is about an appeal from the magistrate to the district court here is the form name btw.
1751300141560.webp
 
I think the reason here is simple. He got behind on filings and fees for "Intimate Dealings LLC" and it was cheaper to let it expire and re-file than to bring the previous LLC current.
Do you know for sure that it's actually cheaper to file for a new LLC than it is to re-up? That seems bizzare(ly).
 
Do you know for sure that it's actually cheaper to file for a new LLC than it is to re-up? That seems bizzare(ly).
Yearly fees are $350. New filing is $425. Get more than a year behind and it seems to make sense. There's also a $300 reinstatement fee that seems to also require all the missing yearly fees as well. If you had no assets in the previous LLC there doesn't seem to be much reason to reinstate it.
 
1751300174498.webp
Hardin should have included a footnote that Greer never made any efforts to DMCA Google to take down the infringing content or sue them for copyright infringement. Further illustrates that his case is not made in good faith.

1751298858414.webp
Word Of The Day: Quibbles
 
Gree does not get to respond to this document, the process goes motion to dismiss (Hardin) -> response (Greee) -> reply (what Hardin filed today). Given how he's handled the sanctions I expect he won't try relitigating this filing unless or until Bennett recommends dismissal/Barlow grants the recommendation.

True as this may be, I do not expect that to stop Russhole from replying to it with a supplemental authority document full of insults and plights.
 
1751301246857.webp
This seems like a kill-shot to me for the "you don't get another bite at the apple" argument.
 
Is the red-line comparison approach reasonably standard operating practice? It's kinda weird to see editing approaches show up in law, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes, although it's much more commonly done in legislation than litigation. In some jurisdictions the local rules actually require the plaintiff submit one with an amended complaint. For example, the District of Delaware.
 
Yes, I saw, but I was more interested in Grande Communications Networks, LLC v. UMG Recordings, Incorporated, et al. because it is the Grande case that actually cites Greer v. Moon 10th Circuit decision.

Cox v. Sony does cite Greer v. Moon! We're going to SCOTUS, baby!
1751301456362.webp

ETA forgot to mention they denied cert in Sony v. Cox today, hee.
1751301639812.webp
 

Attachments

1751301263674.webp

Hey! No helping Greer! Someone janny Hardin before he gets the thread locked!

Text of Federal Rules of Evidence 902, for those wondering. Spoiler: iPhone screenshots of websites and email are not covered.


Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating​

The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

(1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed . A document that bears:

(A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and​
(B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.​

(2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified . A document that bears no seal if:

(A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A) ; and​
(B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.​

(3) Foreign Public Documents . A document that purports to be signed or attested by a person who is authorized by a foreign country’s law to do so. The document must be accompanied by a final certification that certifies the genuineness of the signature and official position of the signer or attester — or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the signature or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the signature or attestation. The certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If all parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to investigate the document’s authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:

(A) order that it be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification; or​
(B) allow it to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.​

(4) Certified Copies of Public Records . A copy of an official record — or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if the copy is certified as correct by:

(A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or​
(B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1) , (2) , or (3) , a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.​

(5) Official Publications . A book, pamphlet, or other publication purporting to be issued by a public authority.

(6) Newspapers and Periodicals . Printed material purporting to be a newspaper or periodical.

(7) Trade Inscriptions and the Like . An inscription, sign, tag, or label purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating origin, ownership, or control.

(8) Acknowledged Documents . A document accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment that is lawfully executed by a notary public or another officer who is authorized to take acknowledgments.

(9) Commercial Paper and Related Documents . Commercial paper, a signature on it, and related documents, to the extent allowed by general commercial law.

(10) Presumptions Under a Federal Statute . A signature, document, or anything else that a federal statute declares to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

(11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity . The original or a copy of a domestic record that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6) (A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that complies with a federal statute or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. Before the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record — and must make the record and certification available for inspection — so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them.

(12) Certified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity . In a civil case, the original or a copy of a foreign record that meets the requirements of Rule 902(11) , modified as follows: the certification, rather than complying with a federal statute or Supreme Court rule, must be signed in a manner that, if falsely made, would subject the maker to a criminal penalty in the country where the certification is signed. The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11) .

(13) Certified Records Generated by an Electronic Process or System. A record generated by an electronic process or system that produces an accurate result, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule 902(11) or (12). The proponent must also meet the notice requirements of Rule 902(11).

(14) Certified Data Copied from an Electronic Device, Storage Medium, or File. Data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, if authenticated by a process of digital identification, as shown by a certification of a qualified person that complies with the certification requirements of Rule (902(11) or (12). The proponent also must meet the notice requirements of Rule 902 (11).
 

Attachments

I don't know if the judge is going to want to put as much time into going down that route as it almost certainly requires more work than he'll want to put into it when there are already several other avenues to dispose of this case more easily
What work? Greer outright admitted to IFP fraud in his response filing. Not that he realized he did it.

He said he filed IFP in this case because he had had too much elective spending that month. Such as suing his way onto AGT! But the statute of limitations on this case would expire before he had enough money for it. So he committed IFP fraud to beat the clock. This doesn't require deep analysis or legal research. The Plaintiff seems to openly admit he views IFP to use as a slush fund when he runs out of money for all of his elective and vexatious lawsuits.
 
So since the thing about posting the DMCA is being cited in other cases, I have a question. Assume that Greer v. Moon is dismissed for being totally fucking gay. What happens to that? Is it still legal precedent since the case never made it all the way, or what?
 
Back
Top Bottom