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

[Prokhor Zakharov]

The court can simply stop allowing him to email his drivel directly to the Clerk and instead force him to send it via US mail and serve Hardin each time.

That would end the case immediately, because Retard is a fucking penniless moron.

and The Hardship did ask for this remedy the last time Crusty said that 3 e-mails is one day was too many, and the judges never bothered to respond to it, so it is just sitting there like a dried up old turd in the sun.

 

[Bogliacci]

Would it be acceptable for another reduced sanction but with a stipulation that Greee no longer has access to filing by email?

 

[jerkstore]

many, many years ago, tort reform was something candidates for office at state and national level used to have as one of their pillars of change that they ran on, exactly because of cases like this one. not one damn political candidate for any office talks about tort reform, anymore. U.S. government was build on a system of “checks and balances,” but the judiciary is wildly out of balance, and not a damn person cares to do anything about it. the cost to taxpayers, and to null, for this fucking r-tard case to go on is absurd. if you are a voting person, get your lazy ass congress-people and senators to move toward tort reform again. i know most of politics is about the “issue of the moment,” but ffs, utah is paying these judges handsomely to do fuck-all. because they can, with zero accountability.

 

[cromit]

tort reform

This case isn’t a tort, and new statutes don’t stop retards like Russ (or Stabby) and won’t stop sovcits either. The only thing that’s left is to call your sens and reps to make them put impeachment back on the table for Article III judges. They only get to hold their office “during good behavior,” after all, and they’re behaving pretty badly in this matter.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This case isn’t a tort, and new statutes don’t stop retards like Russ (or Stabby) and won’t stop sovcits either. The only thing that’s left is to call your sens and reps to make them put impeachment back on the table for Article III judges. They only get to hold their office “during good behavior,” after all, and they’re behaving pretty badly in this matter.

Very early America (and UK) had a solution that worked pretty well. If Judge fucked about, you could sue them and make them liable for their fuckery. SCOTUS forbids this now because it would embarass the profession of Judges and trust in the Court.

 

[jerkstore]

This case isn’t a tort, and new statutes don’t stop retards like Russ (or Stabby) and won’t stop sovcits either. The only thing that’s left is to call your sens and reps to make them put impeachment back on the table for Article III judges. They only get to hold their office “during good behavior,” after all, and they’re behaving pretty badly in this matter.

maybe i’m the retard, but i know a tort to mean a civil act that causes wrong to a person or their property. that’s… what russell has been alleging this whole time. that because of “copyright infringement” by null, russell has been harmed.

 

[Billy Bong]

I think at this point, both judges are sort of clued in now.
Maybe it was the AI filings, maybe it was Hardin performing for The Supremes, but I think they finally know who they're dealing with.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Very early America (and UK) had a solution that worked pretty well. If Judge fucked about, you could sue them and make them liable for their fuckery. SCOTUS forbids this now because it would embarass the profession of Judges and trust in the Court.

That actually seems like a good solution. So, of course, they got rid of it.

 

[The Dude]

That actually seems like a good solution. So, of course, they got rid of it.

The whole system has been torn down from the Framers' vision of a country where the citizens held the power and authority to ensure their government would be incapable of fucking over their lives, and rebuilt it as a system where the power is at the top, the elite get cushy lifetime positions with no accountability, and the average citizen gets force-fed shit by faceless bureaucrats.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That actually seems like a good solution. So, of course, they got rid of it.

I mean, I see some issues with it, but Judges probably perform better when they risk becoming liable for bad decisions. You can sue a doctor for medical malpractice; you can sue your lawyer for representing you poorly (though with not a great deal of chance for success); hell, you even can have the court remove your opponent's lawyer for unethical behavior or extremely poor argumentation (Dershowitz invented this legal maneuver and is the only master of it, IIRC. If you sue him, half the docket is going to be him replacing YOUR lawyer).

You can do all that, but you can't sue a Judge? Seems weird.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The whole system has been torn down from the Framers' vision of a country where the citizens held the power and authority to ensure their government would be incapable of fucking over their lives, and rebuilt it as a system where the power is at the top, the elite get cushy lifetime positions with no accountability, and the average citizen gets force-fed shit by faceless bureaucrats.

You just described every human society, ever. Hate to burst your bubble, but you can't change human nature. You can only do what you can to mitigate its worst excesses and keep things moving along in a utilitarian and generally positive direction.

 

[DHugo]

That actually seems like a good solution. So, of course, they got rid of it.

Wealthier people would sue judges for the slightest reasons. And retards would also sue them, and more often than this site gets sued. A judge wouldn't be able to handle all the lawsuits coming their way.

 

[Ed Craven]

The court can simply stop allowing him to email his drivel directly to the Clerk and instead force him to send it via US mail and serve Hardin each time.

That would end the case immediately, because Retard is a fucking penniless moron.

It's not even that much to mail shit out. At most he's paying 8 cents a page in the library's printer and a few bucks per mailer? But this disgusting sex pest kept going to FedEx so he could hit on one of the ladies there.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Very early America (and UK) had a solution that worked pretty well.

Tarring and feathering?

 

[waffle]

Tarring and feathering?

You have to make sure you also tie them to a fence rail and run them to the edge of town on it when you're done.

 

[DragoonSierra]

I mean, I see some issues with it, but Judges probably perform better when they risk becoming liable for bad decisions. You can sue a doctor for medical malpractice; you can sue your lawyer for representing you poorly (though with not a great deal of chance for success); hell, you even can have the court remove your opponent's lawyer for unethical behavior or extremely poor argumentation (Dershowitz invented this legal maneuver and is the only master of it, IIRC. If you sue him, half the docket is going to be him replacing YOUR lawyer).

You can do all that, but you can't sue a Judge? Seems weird.

Unfortunately, this just leads to judges caring about thier rulings ruining their images, which the elected ones do now because they are nothing more than politicians.

 

[The Dude]

You just described every human society, ever. Hate to burst your bubble, but you can't change human nature. You can only do what you can to mitigate its worst excesses and keep things moving along in a utilitarian and generally positive direction.

That's the thing: we had one of the best systems for fending off human nature to secure the liberty of the individual. It was a system created by wise men who understood human nature and how, if left unchecked by a system designed to keep it held at bay, it will end in tyranny and the erosion of civil liberty. And bit by bit, piece by piece, our society allowed it to be torn down brick by brick with promises of "prosperity", "comfort", and "security" despite the dire warnings of exactly that our Founding Fathers left us with. I'm not so much angry at those who reformed our system in their own image, as I am angry at our predecessors who allowed it to happen to them.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Very early America (and UK) had a solution that worked pretty well. If Judge fucked about, you could sue them and make them liable for their fuckery. SCOTUS forbids this now because it would embarass the profession of Judges and trust in the Court.

Wealthier people would sue judges for the slightest reasons. And retards would also sue them, and more often than this site gets sued. A judge wouldn't be able to handle all the lawsuits coming their way.

I've thought this before about "judge fatigue" in general, and efforts to reform, like proposed legislation to make judges liable for releasing murderers who reoffend.

True, if Judges weren't immune for decisions from the bench, everyone they ever rule against would sue them to the point they wouldn't have any time to work on actual judgements, and the judges in each of those cases would also immediately get sued by the same plaintiff or the last judge for ruling against him and so on and so forth forever.

Before in this thread, it's been asked "Can't these judges be held accountable?" and in response, a case was mentioned in which a judge jumped down and bit someone on the nose, and was still found to be immune for actions from the bench. But I understand why: if he hadn't been found immune, that would become caselaw, and every judge in the country would suddenly get sued with arguments of "As is established caselaw, judges can be found liable for biting people on the nose, and this judge, by ruling against my client on his patent lawsuit, inflicted far more financial and emotional damage than simply biting him on the nose..." and when some judge humored that, it would become controlling caselaw that judges can be sued for ruling against you in a patent case which would become caselaw for finding judges liable in a divorce and so on until we arrive at the scenario above.

The problem is, if the worst judges did with their immunity was bite someone on the nose, and that was an exceedingly rare occurrence, then on the whole the system could continue, what can't continue is every district judge trying to outrank the President and entire legislative branch while letting every rapist and murderer go free

 

[GamerGateSurvivor]

I think at this point, both judges are sort of clued in now.
Maybe it was the AI filings, maybe it was Hardin performing for The Supremes, but I think they finally know who they're dealing with.

I think it's the use of AI. I can't imagine judges are thrilled with the idea of a gimpy faced retard waltzing into court with AI generated paperwork thinking he can do the job of someone with a formal legal education.

 

[Unknown God]

I mean, I see some issues with it, but Judges probably perform better when they risk becoming liable for bad decisions. You can sue a doctor for medical malpractice; you can sue your lawyer for representing you poorly (though with not a great deal of chance for success); hell, you even can have the court remove your opponent's lawyer for unethical behavior or extremely poor argumentation (Dershowitz invented this legal maneuver and is the only master of it, IIRC. If you sue him, half the docket is going to be him replacing YOUR lawyer).

You can do all that, but you can't sue a Judge? Seems weird.

The judge is acting as an agent of the state. Allowing the general public to personally sue government workers for actions they took while exercising their duties does sound like a huge wrench in the workings of any state.