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

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

God, I ask that You move the judges to rule in Josh and Hardin's favor. Not just because it would be funny, but because Josh needs this win and Greer needs another legal smackdown.

 

[Tiresome]

Twenty-seven days from now, a one line judgment, "The Court awards Plaintiff the amount of $4,620.", followed by six months of total radio silence from the court despite any request for correction or any number of screeching, desperate, greed-riddled demands from Russ.

 

[CEO of Gay]

I don't know if it looks bad that nearly half of Hardin's requested amount comes from writing up this bill. Is that normal? He's claiming to have spent 2x as much time drafting this memo this than he did dealing with the Steve issue, or 7x more time than dealing with the SPO violation accusation.

I am reminded of this quote:

I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.

It's easy to to vomit one's unrefined thoughts onto a page; look at any of Gree's plight-filled motions. It is a much larger task to then edit down that rough draft into to something clear, concise, and well-supported by facts and evidence. The judge ordered a maximum of 10 pages. Even if every shitpost and retarded joke in this thread were deleted, leaving only the posts that intelligently discuss what has happened so far in this case, the posts covering the same period as Hardin's statement would number more than 10 pages.

 

[Post Reply]

That last bit is funny. I think it's because Greee is scared that, for the first time in his "legal career", he will face real consequences for his lying.


Lmao, the brothel Google reviews get a mention.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

That last bit is funny. I think it's because Greee is scared that, for the first time in his "legal career", he will face real consequences for his lying.

Mr Hardin has him rattled like no other. Greeee, for whatever reason, has this perception that Mr Hardin is the one receiving special treatment, so I guess that's why he's a little more reluctant to just run around screaming "bomb" in an airport. Usually he can get away with it, but Mr Hardin has sleeper agents squirreled away in every conceivable public and private body just waiting to punish him for an honest goof up.

II. Facts

a) Mr. Greer Makes Materially False Statements.

This should be the title of your next book, Shitlips.

 

[The Dude]

Gonna be interesting to see if Russ files his show cause, and if he does what it will actually say. And if he does file it, will it be on time, or will it be late? And if it is late, will the court let it slide yet again, or will they finally be sick of Russhole's bullshit and pee-pee smack him with a gavel?

 

[Swole McPole]

He could’ve trimmed some of his cute little comments about brothels and prostitutes.

I thought Hardin kind of over-egged this particular pudding. While the attempted brothel purchases obviously belong in there and cast important light on Greer's claims about his financial status, who cares whether he spends $5k, $14k or $50k on hookers? It looks like an attempt to prejudice the court against him. "Look at this man of low morals. He spends $14k a year on prostitutes. What a scoundrel."

Presumably, if he'd spent that money in bars, or on a more luxurious car or a better apartment it'd go without comment, but because he goes a whoring (perfectly legal in the state of Nevada) the court is invited to see him as a man with money to burn?

Still, I'm sure Hardin is better placed than I am to know what's effective here. I'd probably have exercised a bit more restraint here though.

 

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

I thought Hardin kind of over-egged this particular pudding. While the attempted brothel purchases obviously belong in there and cast important light on Greer's claims about his financial status, who cares whether he spends $5k, $14k or $50k on hookers? It looks like an attempt to prejudice the court against him. "Look at this man of low morals. He spends $14k a year on prostitutes. What a scoundrel."

Presumably, if he'd spent that money in bars, or on a more luxurious car or a better apartment it'd go without comment, but because he goes a whoring (perfectly legal in the state of Nevada) the court is invited to see him as a man with money to burn?

Still, I'm sure Hardin is better placed than I am to know what's effective here. I'd probably have exercised a bit more restraint here though.

Because his spending money on said hookers underlines that his IFP status was bullshit and that the courts ought not reduce any judgements against him.

I think the prostitute angle is less about morality and more about spending on luxuries. A Ferrari and Rent-A-Pusssy both fall under that umbrella of luxury.

 

[FamicomGorby]

I thought Hardin kind of over-egged this particular pudding. While the attempted brothel purchases obviously belong in there and cast important light on Greer's claims about his financial status, who cares whether he spends $5k, $14k or $50k on hookers? It looks like an attempt to prejudice the court against him. "Look at this man of low morals. He spends $14k a year on prostitutes. What a scoundrel."

Presumably, if he'd spent that money in bars, or on a more luxurious car or a better apartment it'd go without comment, but because he goes a whoring (perfectly legal in the state of Nevada) the court is invited to see him as a man with money to burn?

Still, I'm sure Hardin is better placed than I am to know what's effective here. I'd probably have exercised a bit more restraint here though.

I assume if Greer did spend money on other luxuries then Hardin would bring them up. The fact though is Greer's income is basically 100% directed at hookers and he claims constantly to have the resources to purchase and build brothels. It's just impossible not to bring up his whoring when stressing to the court that Greer has the ability to pay these sanctions, what else could you point to his income going to?


Personally I don't see how Greer actually could pay since I think his income comes from driving for Lyft or Uber and probably amounts to close to minimum wage after expenses. But that's incongruous with his many public statements so it would be up to Greer to prove that he is in fact a broke bitch.

 

[Swole McPole]

I think the prostitute angle is less about morality and more about spending on luxuries. A Ferrari and Rent-A-Pusssy both fall under that umbrella of luxury.

That's a logical explanation for putting it in there, but $14k over the course of a year is hardly Ferrari territory. It's more Audi/BMW/Lexus land.

But I suppose if he's driving a luxury sedan like that, you'd want it in there as well.

 

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

That's a logical explanation for putting it in there, but $14k over the course of a year is hardly Ferrari territory. It's more Audi/BMW/Lexus land.

But I suppose if he's driving a luxury sedan like that, you'd want it in there as well.

Nah, I respectfully disagree. I'm pretty sure anything you spend $14,000 annually is huge when you're claiming to be so poor you must burden the person you're spuriously suing. The average American makes that after taxes in like 2-3 months, and this dude is spending it on whores. That's significant when we're talking about someone who was recently IFP.

 

[obsdj]

Lmao, the brothel Google reviews get a mention.

That's the kind of cuteness I think was unnecessary, and a waste of precious space in the limit of ten pages that would've been better spent on a few sentences reminding the court of the costly re-transfer of the case back to Utah from Florida. The Google reviews aren't in evidence, I'm pretty sure they were never brought up before in prior filings, and I won't finish this sentence for fear of helping Greer but I just think this kind of thing is a misfire. Fun for us, yes. But probably less useful than, "By the way, Mr. Greer's lie about Steve Taylor is directly responsible for the case being improperly brought back to Utah, wasting time, money, and resources for both Defendants and this very court. ECF 133 July 15 2024, AND THIS COURT'S ENTIRE LENGTHY DOCKET SINCE THAT DATE."

 

[The Dude]

That's a logical explanation for putting it in there, but $14k over the course of a year is hardly Ferrari territory. It's more Audi/BMW/Lexus land.

But I suppose if he's driving a luxury sedan like that, you'd want it in there as well.

It doesn't matter if it's whores, Ferarris, gaming PCs, French champagne, tattoos, or fucking gold bars. It is to underline that Russhole seemingly has money to blow on luxuries and leisure while at the same time pleading poverty to the court to gain IFP status and playing fucky-wucky games with paying back the penalties the court has ordered against him. It is absolutely germane to the conversation. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp here.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

Mr Hardin has him rattled like no other. Greeee, for whatever reason, has this perception that Mr Hardin is the one receiving special treatment, so I guess that's why he's a little more reluctant to just run around screaming "bomb" in an airport. Usually he can get away with it, but Mr Hardin has sleeper agents squirreled away in every conceivable public and private body just waiting to punish him for an honest goof up.

Russ is still confused about why Hardin is advocating for his client Josh instead of helping Greer argue him his case.

Gonna be interesting to see if Russ files his show cause, and if he does what it will actually say. And if he does file it, will it be on time, or will it be late? And if it is late, will the court let it slide yet again, or will they finally be sick of Russhole's bullshit and pee-pee smack him with a gavel?

What are the odds for Greer submitting AI slop, but only after the deadline?

The court will do nothing about it. That's the safest bet on the planet.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That's the kind of cuteness I think was unnecessary,

It shows that Russ didn't only have that money in 2018, but that he has that money to this day. Because it (the ability to pay) is important factor to consider in awarding sanctions as set out by the King factors mentioned in the document. That said, I think it should have been in the main body of the document and not a footnote.

"By the way, Mr. Greer's lie about Steve Taylor is directly responsible for the case being improperly brought back to Utah, wasting time, money, and resources for both Defendants and this very court. ECF 133 July 15 2024, AND THIS COURT'S ENTIRE LENGTHY DOCKET SINCE THAT DATE."

The improper transfer was mentioned, and the waste of (Mr. Hardin and Null's )resources was complained about

(again, I presume that Barlow and Bennett know where they live)





That is all besides the point that Greer will do the obvious in response to the Judge's order (and surely in response to this filing as well), and Mr. Hardin will get to do a less-limited response because Greer will surely harp on the Taylor issue as well.

 

[Pee Cola]

Presumably, if he'd spent that money in bars, or on a more luxurious car or a better apartment it'd go without comment, but because he goes a whoring (perfectly legal in the state of Nevada) the court is invited to see him as a man with money to burn?

From my armchair, the point Hardin made is that Greee obviously has money to spend on extra-curricular activities, and therefore has the wherewithal to pay the full sanction amount claimed. I'm sure if Greee cried poor whilst showing off a collection of luxury watches on Instagram, Hardin would be just as vigorous in demonstrating that IFP status is no longer valid (if it was even valid to begin with).

 

[Shig O'nella]

Hardin, summarised:

If he can pay to fuck he can pay for his fucking around, your honor.

 

[obsdj]

(again, I presume that Barlow and Bennett know where they live)

Hardin's tendency to natter on with cleverness is known to sometimes get in the way. One example is reflected in the May 6 hearing, if you look at the transcript: The judge was under the extremely mistaken impression that Hardin had (eventually) succeeded in getting the Utah docs, and in fact was going to deny Rule 37 sanctions as "unjust"!



Fortunately Hardin was able to interject and make a record, explaining that he never did get the docs. The judge commented that that was not clear to him from Hardin's briefing.



And we've certainly seen plenty of other examples where the judge has either failed to notice or forgotten or deliberately ignored pertinent items and thereby denied much-deserved sanctions. Remember this?



Those appear, to me, to be the words of a man who needs to be explicitly reminded, with small words, of the actual trajectory of the case over the past year-plus.

To be clear, I never said Hardin shouldn't have brought up the brothels and hookers at all, just that he could've kept those items briefer with a mind to include more clear and concise mentions of the extreme cost and drain on everybody's resources that the lies caused. The judges may indeed know where they live, but they have shown they're not really voracious readers (or readers-between-the-lines) when it comes to our side's filings.

 

[Harvey Danger]

It's easy to to vomit one's unrefined thoughts onto a page; look at any of Gree's plight-filled motions. It is a much larger task to then edit down that rough draft into to something clear, concise, and well-supported by facts and evidence.

Sure, but putting on my battered Judge Chupp hat, this could look like bill padding.

Hardin showed he's a lawyer that can deal with STEVE IS FUCKING DEAD in fewer hours than one of Null's Whattaburger shifts. He billed as much time for the SPO nonsense as I took to write my last post. Suddenly it takes an entire business day (minus lunch) to explain his billing, conveniently doubling the fees?

To be clear, I do not think Hardin is padding or being dishonest at all. I do think the level of scrupulousness he showed in that memo takes extra time, and he was right to include it. My problem, as ever, is optics before dumb judges. If he had included all the other billing I was complaining about earlier, that would make the bill writeup a smaller portion of the total, and less noticeable.

Going for strict conservative estimates, excluding borderline expenses, and not bringing in the jurisdictional transfer, is a strategy to show the judge "here's my absolute minimum bill that has no room for trimming". But he's doing that in front of a judge with a demonstrated willingness to cut the minimum, for no good reason. So ask for the moon and give the cutting judge something borderline to cut, like the time spent on the sanctions against Hardin, or the time spent googling for Steve's obituary. Otherwise he may look at the largest line item and start there, even if he shouldn't.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

One example is reflected in the May 6 hearing, if you look at the transcript: The judge was under the extremely mistaken impression that Hardin had (eventually) succeeded in getting the Utah docs, and in fact was going to deny Rule 37 sanctions as "unjust"!



Fortunately Hardin was able to interject and make a record, explaining that he never did get the docs. The judge commented that that was not clear to him from Hardin's briefing.

I had a disagreement written out, but I went back and checked the docket, and I sorta have to agree with Bennett here. The docket is so bloated, it isn't even clear to me even where to look for briefing on the issue (even with me knowing the approximate timeframe). Mr. Hardin does make pointed comments sometimes that may not be necessary, I don't think we disagree with that. My point is that this was very necessary this time.

And we've certainly seen plenty of other examples where the judge has either failed to notice or forgotten or deliberately ignored pertinent items and thereby denied much-deserved sanctions. Remember this?



Those appear, to me, to be the words of a man who needs to be explicitly reminded, with small words, of the actual trajectory of the case over the past year-plus.

Yes, unfortunately I do remember that. I'll be optimistic and hopeful that "About six months earlier, on May 20, 2024, Mr. Greer filed a motion indicating that Steve Taylor was “eager” to testify in this matter if it was retransferred to Utah, but could not testify in Florida" is sufficiently clear for Bennett considering where the case ended up. I'd bring up that it was elaborated on greater length during the hearing, but as you point out, we can't wholly rely on Bennett's memory.

To be clear, I never said Hardin shouldn't have brought up the brothels and hookers at all, just that he could've kept those items briefer with a mind to include more clear and concise mentions of the extreme cost and drain on everybody's resources that the lies caused.

Then I must have misunderstood you. Sorry about that.