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

[Pee Cola]

No way Russell wrote this, he couldn't come up with language like this if he was beaten with a thesaurus.
View attachment 7959370

"inapposite" is a ten-dollar word if ever I've seen one.

Bizarrely, Greee doesn't appear to have manually edited this filing to include his usual linguistic flourishes and general histrionics.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Definitely not Greer. The citation format for cases has changed and the U.S.C. citations are correct now.
Before: View attachment 7959422

After: View attachment 7959420

Just noticed a Greer-format snuck through.
View attachment 7959477
But, as just as important, that's a totally nonsensical reference. There is no title 545 of the U.S. Code.
If he meant to cite the Grokster case it's 545 U.S. 919 (not "at 919" or "at 939"). And then you'd have a reference to the actual paragraph you were citing (at something).

You guys are confusing two different types of citation.

The "U.S." citations are supreme court cases. The "U.S.C." citation is to the United States Code. The "545 U.S. at 939" citation is to page 939 of volume 545 of the United States Reports, presumably with the first page of that particular case having been previously cited in less-abbreviated format (MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)).

 

[DavidS877]

You guys are confusing two different types of citation.

The "U.S." citations are supreme court cases. The "U.S.C." citation is to the United States Code. The "545 U.S. at 939" citation is to page 939 of volume 545 of the United States Reports, presumably with the first page of that particular case having been previously cited in less-abbreviated format (MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)).

Greer has used 14 U.S. 123 in his previous cases when referring to the U.S. Code. There is no Supreme court case of "28 U.S. 1927"

I didn't realize that it was a page number, but he or the AI didn't previously cite the case properly.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Bizarrely, Greee doesn't appear to have manually edited this filing to include his usual linguistic flourishes and general histrionics.

I think he's finally had enough of getting slapped around by Hardin. If he can't hire a professional lawyer, he'll have ChatGPT do it for him! However, this is Greer we're talking about. Odds are, he didn't put in the correct prompt or check his work, just straight-up copied and pasted it. If we check his citations, odds are good there's at least one misapplied or outright false citation.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Of all the times people said Russ must've used AI, this is the first one I believe.

Sad, as I've previously said Russ was so interesting because of all his creative output before AI. You could say at least Russ does his own lyrics and books and filings, no more.

 

[CEO of Gay]

What I find most interesting about this, is that this response cites Greer v. Moon to argue against Hardin's filing, using language that would imply that the case has already been concluded in Greer's favor.

Maybe the 10th circuit really does have access to time travel.

I wonder, will it be worth it for Hardin to point out to the court that Gree is using ChatGPT to write his motions and responses now?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

So it's either someone helping Greeeeeee or it's him asking ChatGPT for help.

In the case of the former, is a Pro Se litigant allowed to get a lawyer to ghost write his case for him?

In the case of the later, when Greeeeeeee's robot hallucinates -- and they ALWAYS DO -- can Hardin point out the use of AI and see if that pisses the judge off enough to do something? I've heard they don't take kindly to robots stealin' their jarbs.

 

[FamicomGorby]

What I find most interesting about this, is that this response cites Greer v. Moon to argue against Hardin's filing, using language that would imply that the case has already been concluded in Greer's favor.

Greer has made it clear numerous times that he believes he's already won this case due to the 10th circuit reviving it.

I wonder, will it be worth it for Hardin to point out to the court that Gree is using ChatGPT to write his motions and responses now?

I don't know if there's enough evidence for that but I wouldn't put it past Greer. He already listed a dead guy as a witness, why not start citing fake cases as well?

Do wonder if he desperately emailed the DJF about Cox v Sony, maybe they sent him short reply back and he incorporated their fancy lawyer talk into his own filing.

 

[TurboNAS]

In the case of the former, is a Pro Se litigant allowed to get a lawyer to ghost write his case for him?

Sure. Proving it happened is probably expensive and not likely unless Greer says it in a filing.

As for hallucinated citations, those can be pointed out as a response to a filing but it’s mostly going to be noise. It’s nice to be thorough but Greer is pro se, you can’t disbar him like you can when a real lawyer does this crap.

 

[Unintelligence Score]

Of all the times people said Russ must've used AI, this is the first one I believe.

Sad, as I've previously said Russ was so interesting because of all his creative output before AI. You could say at least Russ does his own lyrics and books and filings, no more.

You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

My money's on AI. No plights, it's very neutral and impersonal. When has Greer ever used words like akin, induce, immunize in past filings?

 

[The Dude]

Shit-Lips must be absolutely TERRIFIED that he's close to losing the case if he's bringing in a clanker to pinch hit on his filings. It's probably the closest we will ever get to seeing Russhole admit that he's an incompetent boob who is out of his depth and in way over his head with this case. It must've really bruised his tender ego to have to do it.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Greer has made it clear numerous times that he believes he's already won this case due to the 10th circuit reviving it.


I don't know if there's enough evidence for that but I wouldn't put it past Greer. He already listed a dead guy as a witness, why not start citing fake cases as well?

Do wonder if he desperately emailed the DJF about Cox v Sony, maybe they sent him short reply back and he incorporated their fancy lawyer talk into his own filing.

Don’t forget that two actual lawyers - Trump’s shady casino lawyer and the buffoon who represented Stormy Daniels - both cited fake cases in pleadings [to hilarious effect].

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

Shit-Lips must be absolutely TERRIFIED that he's close to losing the case if he's bringing in a clanker to pinch hit on his filings. It's probably the closest we will ever get to seeing Russhole admit that he's an incompetent boob who is out of his depth and in way over his head with this case. It must've really bruised his tender ego to have to do it.

Wildly optimistic take IMO. Crusty is probably all giddy that he gets to waste more of Jersh's money (through wasting Hardin's time) with plausibly realistic AI-authored argumentation rather than his usual obvious bullshit which is easily slapped down and often sanctionable. He might be retarded but he's very experienced in taking advantage of every avenue open to him to get what he wants, which, as stated by the man himself, is to bankrupt Null and cause as much damage to KF as he can.

Hopefully the judges would rather just get rid of this case already on the basis of the already submitted motions for dismissal and sanctions for his past bullshit, but if they look at this filing on its face they might not remember what kind of massive snot nosed retard he really is.

I also fully expect him to do this again, many times.

 

[obsdj]

Hopefully the judges would rather just get rid of this case already on the basis of the already submitted motions for dismissal and sanctions for his past bullshit, but if they look at this filing on its face they might not remember what kind of massive snot nosed retard he really is.

Seems to me that this is a wildly optimistic take. If the judges wanted to get rid of this case based on the lengthy collection of unacted-upon motions and sanctions, they could've easily done so months ago.

That being said, if they're going to take Dipshitforlips's most recent filing on its face -- "Don't wait for SCOTUS like the evil Kiwi Farms says, let's move ahead now" -- that could have the unintended (for Russell) effect of the judges saying, "Yeah, let's not wait." Really, he's fucked either way if the judges decide to get off their asses. If they dismiss, well, it's dismissed (and he'll have to pay to try and appeal). If they decline to dismiss, that means he has to get back to work figuring out how to prosecute his case, and we all know he has nothing. Even if he uses AI for future filings, he'll have to be his own real self in hearings and in court, and we've seen how skilled he is in that department.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

In the case of the former, is a Pro Se litigant allowed to get a lawyer to ghost write his case for him?

Not in the 10th, no.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I wonder if using ChatGPT counts as ghost writing. Its one of those novel intellectual deep thunks. Technically Greer isn't writing his brief. The computer is. But the computer isn't a lawyer, its a tool. I can see how both sides of the argument could be made. Could lead too some hilarity down the line. GPT has been known too hallucinate cases and citations.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I wonder if using ChatGPT counts as ghost writing. Its one of those novel intellectual deep thunks. Technically Greer isn't writing his brief. The computer is. But the computer isn't a lawyer, its a tool. I can see how both sides of the argument could be made. Could lead too some hilarity down the line. GPT has been known too hallucinate cases and citations.

There's a weird fine line in various courts, where you can't just have a lawyer do all your shit, but you file it pro se (as this would be the lawyer basically getting the pro se retard defense added on) but usually you CAN ask a lawyer questions or "consult" for some value of that.

Where fucking AI falls in that spectrum is anyone's guess. I suppose the Supremes will rule on it in 2103.

 

[Mexican Molotov Marauder]

I suppose the Supremes will rule on it in 2103.

Well, well, well, we've got a little optimist over here, don't we?

My money's on AI. No plights, it's very neutral and impersonal. When has Greer ever used words like akin, induce, immunize in past filings?

Fucking never, that's when. Not just in court filings but all of his writing. I read his book, Russell's writing style is shockingly underdeveloped for someone with a paralegal degree.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I read his book, Russell's writing style is shockingly underdeveloped for someone with a paralegal degree.

Which, of course, you legally purchased, yes?