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

[Iron Hamster]

ECF 378
View attachment 8118475
View attachment 8118489
Russ filed a 31 page (only 5 of them have any arguments) document disagreeing with the District Judge and asking him to reconsider

lol. Keep poking the bear grizzle.

 

[The Dude]

Oh, a motion to undo the thing that's already been done...again. Who could have seen that coming? I'm sure the court, especially the district judge, will be thrilled with Russhole's recalcitrance.

 

[Mk1 Fire Control Computer]

What the ever living fuck are these exhibits? Only Exhibit A is cited in the motion.

The first exhibit A is his very dumb sanction motion.
The second exhibit A is a cropped screenshot of a banal email from Hardin.
Exhibit B is an incomplete docket notice.
Exhibit C is a screenshot of Gree saying the thing he says be didn't say.
Exhibit D is a screenshot of Greee telling Hardin he isn't going to do the thing he was ordered to do.
Exhibit E an email where Gree acts like Hardin is going to send him a check.
Exhibit F is a screenahot of a headline about Patrick Tomlinson, who is fat, and another about Keffels, a tranny.

I have no idea what the hell he thinks this shows.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

What the ever living fuck are these exhibits

They are the exhibits of his exhibit of his past motion.

 

[DavidS877]

The second exhibit A is a cropped screenshot of a banal email from Hardin.

The second exhibit A is actually the exhibit A from exhibit A.
And all of the remaining exhibits are actually exhibits from that document, not this one. As to why he didn't just say "ECF number X" and instead pasted the whole thing in I have no fucking idea.

Actually, the AI never even mentions what the ECF for that filing was just the date. It's 263 for those of you playing along at home.

 

[StinkySnack]

What the ever living fuck are these exhibits?

Freakshow exhibits.

 

[Bogliacci]

They are the exhibits of his exhibit of his past motion.

"Yur Honor, ashj yuu can shee, I am retard. Plz undo yur denial of zhe undoing zha shing shat happened..."

 

[RodgerDodger]

"Yur Honor, ashj yuu can shee, I am retard. Plz undo yur denial of zhe undoing zha shing shat happened..."

It might be better if he finally discovered alcohol and started filing drunk?

 

[Trout P]

ECF 378
View attachment 8118475
View attachment 8118489
Russ filed a 31 page (only 5 of them have any arguments) document disagreeing with the District Judge and asking him to reconsider

Have the day you fucking deserve, faggot!

 

[Schizo Carmen Sandiego]

He said Mr. Hardin violated SPO before reading it, and the Judge specifically references a filling where Greer says "hey, didn't read spo, plz want copy"
View attachment 8118630
As you can see, there was at least a month between Russ first accusation about SPO without reading it and the time when Russ said "hey, maybe I should actually read this"

Yeah, but he read them eventually which, means saying he never read them is false. Technicality Tomlinson strikes again! Oh wait wrong dude.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

I have no idea what the hell he thinks this shows.

Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Retardation.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

Your honor, I respectfully play the Uno Reverse Card. Your ruling is reversed and Josh Moon now owes me $2000.

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

It might be better if he finally discovered alcohol and started filing drunk?

I can say with complete certainty that alcohol helps with reading the slop he files.

 

[God's Gayest Retard]

This is by far the best gay fanfic weblog on the entire internet. Been following for over a year thanks to the sammich man. Thread's going so fast, nobody will see that I'm a nigger. I'm just in awe at Greer's consistent displays of dominance in all of his filings. I bet those biased, prejudiced judges really feel like he took them to Olive Garden tonight.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Judge:

His pet retard:

I don't know if this is a Freudian slip, admitting he knows he failed the objective standard test; or if he just didn't read that part.

Normally when given a fancy legal term, Greer wrangles some bullshit explaining how whatever he currently wants fits that concept. I would expect him to try pretending he somehow met an objective measurement of good faith. But claiming the opposite (subjective) while requesting reversal is a slap in the face of both judges.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

On the subject of Dead Steve:
View attachment 8118622

There WAS reliance by the Court on your patently false statement, fucktard. They relied on your assertion that he was eager to testify on your behalf, and transferred the case back to Utah as a direct result.

its remarkable that russ found a court case that feature the exact opposite issue as him isn't? if the remedy there is to exlcude the witness, sanctions seem like a fair punishment.

 

[TingoFranDingo]

its remarkable that russ found a court case that feature the exact opposite issue as him isn't? if the remedy there is to exlcude the witness, sanctions seem like a fair punishment.

Honestly, I think its a clever play by the AI who gave him the reference. Exclude the testimony of a dead man who hasnt given any as a 'punishment', as if the testimony had any merit in the first place or was the problem with the witness, to try and put an end to that issue once and for all.
I would want Hardin to respond to that so the court cant take the topic off the table

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

Russell has continually and constantly demonstrated since he came to the recognition of the public that whether in law, life or brothels, he is unable to:

STOP AND THINK

Mr President, another instant, poorly-researched, clanker-generated objection in response to an educated and unreasonably charitable denial has hit the docket.

Man is so bored of his own case, he's actively sabotaging it now. It's just going to be like this forever. He'll lose interest for weeks, ignoring important rulings and then when the consequences finally arrive, he'll just incinerate some rainforest and get the clanker to rebut immediately in the dumbest fashion possible.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

Absolutely not happy. I knew Greee had pissed on their desk several times too many. Barlow's tard-guarding is over and done with, kiwifams!

I am not as optimistic. I'm think the janitor wiped off the desk but failed to sanitize it.

The District Judge made his order on the 31st

This pleases me.

Greer is incapable of reading the temperature and tone in the room.

It's one of my favorite Greer traits. Remember, this is a man who, on a number of occasions, literally couldn't get laid in a brothel.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

The Court’s order states that Plaintiff “had not read and did not know the contents of the [Standard Protective Order].” ECF 376, P. 2. That statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Another materially false statement. In an objection to being sanctioned for making them.

Plaintiff did, in fact, review the SPO—both versions—conducted an independent analysis, and formed a reasoned legal opinion about the applicability of each.

Okay. That explains why you repeatedly failed to identify the specific clause that was violated when prompted.

Plaintiff’s position was grounded in a diligent, good-faith effort

Keep saying that. The Judges love it.

The sanction ruling incorrectly assumed Plaintiff acted without inquiry, when the record proves otherwise.

"Going off a blanket assumption" would suggest that you couldn't have been enquiring too hard.

the Court’s finding rests on an inaccurate factual finding

Make sure you really hammer this point home in any future filings on the subject.

The Court’s order also relied on a second, equally mistaken finding—that Plaintiff made a false or sanctionable statement by asserting that his once-proposed witness “Steve is still eager to testify.” Persuasive case law shows why this shouldn’t be a sanctionable statement. In L-3 Communications Corp. v. Sony Corp., C.A. 10-734 (D. Del. Oct. 23, 2013), the court confronted an eerily similar situation

The situation he goes on to describe is the complete opposite. Credible sources - at the time counsel was preparing to call witnesses, not several fucking years prior - were saying the witness is dead, which is what counsel relied upon. This turned out to not be the case, but because they made reasonable enquiries near to the event with somebody close to the witness instead of relying on a throwaway comment from years ago, they were not sanctioned. Completely identical, as you can see.

If a sophisticated litigant in a patent case can rely on secondhand information about a witness’s death without sanction,

What? Was Steve supposed to inform you himself that he died?

there was no prejudice, discovery violation, or reliance by the Court or Defendants.

In the previous venue, the case would've been flushed like the rancid turd that it is expeditiously. The case was transferred to Utah on the basis that Steve would be your star witness and has been pinballing around with no meaningful progress ever since, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

inconsistent with the leniency afforded to pro se parties acting in subjective good faith.

You see what your "aww, but he's just a poor widdle pro se, IFP guy" has wrought? SUFFAH!

Acknowledge that the record—including Plaintiff’s March 28, 2025 filing—demonstrates he reviewed and relied on both versions of the District’s Standard Protective Order, and that his legal position was based on a good-faith reading of the applicable SPO

Which is the applicable one? What clause was violated? Answer the question.

Clarify that Plaintiff’s statement regarding the willingness of witness “Steve” was not made in bad faith, did not violate any duty under Rule 11(b), and—at most—warrants the limited remedy of exclusion rather than punitive sanction, consistent with analogous case law

Steve is already excluded on the basis that he is dead and you aren't allowed to call witnesses anyway as part of a previous punishment for clowning around during discovery, remember?

Vacate or amend the October 31, 2025 Rule 11(b) finding to reflect these corrections, or, in the alternative, direct that any further sanctions proceedings be limited to consideration of the corrected factual record

Demanding either revisionist history or the "sanction" of mulling over potential revisionist history is incredible. The only people being punished in that scenario are the Judges. The greatest legal minds could never. I kneel.

One little nitpick though. It does say "any further sanctions proceedings," so the existing sanctions can still go ahead but we also have to think about if Shitlips was actually diligent and not sanctioned in a different timeline.