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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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
I think it is still worthwhile, a ruling in favor of Cox Communication will heavily assist KiwiFarms' contributory infringement defence.
 
Steve Taylor managed a cafe at Ensign College, per Russell’s filing, and that’s how they met back in 2010. He claims in the same document to have asked Mr. Taylor to be a witness for him back in 2021, and that they had a falling out later that same year. We didn’t have any precise dates for these occurrences, but today I was looking for a screenshot and instead came across a review Russell posted in mid-September of 2021, giving his oft-used one star of disapproval to that very cafe. (See review screenshot and the date of the following thread comment)

IMG_3514.jpeg

We can extrapolate that this is probably when he had the falling out with the cafe manager, Steve Taylor.
(This is really neither here nor there, but I think all verifiable data points should be logged when it comes to Russell, just in case it could be useful one day.)
 
I think it is still worthwhile, a ruling in favor of Cox Communication will heavily assist KiwiFarms' contributory infringement defence.
Whichever way the ruling goes, it's probably more convenient for the (extremely hypothetical) trial if there's a recent Supreme Court decision saying exactly what the law is. I mean, look how much of this case has revolved around retarded judges not understanding the facts or the law.
Having the Supremes weigh in at least precludes any more 10th Circus rabbits pulled out of hats.
 
Three upcoming opinion days in SCOTUS in the next two weeks. Anyone hopeful?
Sure, they've got to do something while dragging their feet on everything that would send the NYT editorial page into a kerfuffle. Why not copyright?

I didn't know Diana Ross was such a judicial authority.
We've got the wrong Jackson on the court too.
 
Aside from the general concept of "contributory" infringement, the facts and circumstances of Sony v. Cox bear no resemblance to the fact-pattern in this dumpster fire.

Sony is attempting to create a seismic shift in the application of IP law by making an ISP responsible for "contributory" infringement by allowing alleged infringers to still access the Internet. I suppose they do kind of come off like Greer, REEEEEEEEing over the fact that they "begged" Cox in some cases "multiple" times to "do something" about those mean "infringers" - you know, as opposed to Sony actually doing something about it under the existing law by going after the infringers themselves.

Comparatively, it sounds ridiculous when you think that a victim of an alleged crime perpetrated by a criminal using a telephone should be allowed to sue the phone company for allowing the criminal to have phone service.

But, according to Sony, the tubes are "different". Recall that, supposedly, "net-'neutrality'" was going to guard against this sort of thing. But nevermind that now.

If you ask me it was a mistake to tie any resolution in this case to Sony.
I agree for the most part with your takes on this. The MtD wasn't strong, for a few reasons, and on a suit that has gone up and come back down, especially with the twists and turns and greer's "gaslighting as a legal theory & tactic," and with Cox theoretically around the corner, there would be about a 0.001% chance any MtD would have been successful.

Also, even if Cox did not exist, Barlow is not the kind of lawyer/ judge who likes to lose or be embarrassed. The large firm where he was partner (a while ago) has its roots in the Upper Midwest - yes, folks, Minnesota is/ Minnesotans are stealthily everywhere - and, though it had morphed far beyond that by the time he was a partner there, it still had a flavor of the Upper Midwest version of the patrician lawyer style - upright, correct, and risk-avoidant. That style goes doubly for anyone aiming for the Federal bench. Barlow has a pretty impeccable reputation, and being flatly reversed by a place he probably has or has had sights on almost certainly is not something he wants to repeat. The reversal suggested the appellate court not only thought Barlow was wrong but that the issue needs air time, and I think Barlow is loathe to cut it off at a 12b stage. And Bennett answers to Barlow, but what I did not like about Bennett's recommendation was the tone, which was fairly snide.

I think they also don't want to address Greer's sanctionable conduct for the same reasons, and I don't gave high hopes for a dismissal on those grounds, though Greer has done his level best to give reason to overcome that reticence. And I think silence on all of those filings so far has been to avoid having a record of repeated admonishments, because the more there are, the harder it is not to escalate the penalties. They seem to be trying to walk the line between not letting the case go completely fallow but not getting jammed into indefensible failure to address Greer's lies and misrepresentations. Yes, it's arguable they've not succeeded in balancing on the line and that the time drag is over long and injurious, but they seem to be playing for time.

[And now that I've said that, expect decisions on 27 motions this afternoon so I can be wrong in 27 ways!]

Eta: he was only at Dorsey & Whitney for a year before being called to the bench, and spent most of his career at Sidley (out of Chicago, so same concept).
 
The reversal suggested the appellate court not only thought Barlow was wrong but that the issue needs air time, and I think Barlow is loathe to cut it off at a 12b stage.
Was Barlow the "judge of record" or whatever it's called when Tina™ was in session? If so, that explains almost all of this; he would LOVE to see this go to trial and the original dismissal "proved correct" to shove in the appellate court's face. And why he doesn't want to dismiss it on a technicality, no matter how valid.

This is bad news for us, if true, because it means that he's NOT tardguarding for the sake of the tard, he's doing it for himself, so we will continue to see leniency extended "as far as unreasonably possible" toward Russ. It might even be why they're slow-rolling this $80 shit, because they KNOW they can't get around doing SOMETHING so they keep delaying hoping Russ will wise up and provide the damn document so they can pretend it's all moot. Judges love moot.
 
Kiwi Farms is a source of information for highly credible, major professional international news organizations. We have a valid journalistic interest in studying media such as Greer's book and music to report the news to the global community.

I think what the Guardian is trying to say is:

KIWI FARMS, A SITE KNOWN FOR DOING OUR JOB OF RESEARCH AND JOURNALISM FASTER AND BETTER THAN PEOPLE WHO GET PAID FOR IT

View attachment 8555192



IG they had to cite the farms bc 404 did first.
Cant have pleased their troon-worshipping whipcrackers.

We can't perform this journalistic service if we (alone) are forbidden from accessing publicly posted sources of information like Google Drive folders which continue to exist without any objection from the copyright holder. What happens if Roblox says we can't link to the proof of what happened here because of copyright just because they don't like that this news may make them look bad? Important news is then suppressed.
 
Last edited:
Another Greer victory, as expected. Hardin really needs to re-think his strategy. Stop trying to get these faggots to dismiss, and instead try and accelerate towards the inevitable trial.
Doing things this way allows greer to fuck up on every motion to the point where it might get tossed or at least accidentally tie his own hands up so he can't effectively prosecute the case. If this goes to trial and KF has to just use fair use defense (as opposed to procedural issues or the fact that some of the material was never even hosted on the site!) things are unlikely to go well. The courts do not hold the same view of 'fair use' as we think they should.

In any case, I maintain that it's entirely possible Russ manages to get himself killed by some hooker he tries to woo before the whole case winds itself down. That counts as a win.
 
Deathmarch to trial, etc ad nauseum. But we always knew this MtD was a longshot. It's not enough for Hardin to be technically correct, he has to be finally and completely correct here. I still believe Null ultimately wins this, that the tard-guarding is to get Greer through the setup, not through the merits.
The problem is Russel Greer is too fucking retarded to even complete any of the steps he needs to do in order to get to trial. Remember how long it took to get a scheduling conference going?

It's a catch 22 scenario nothing Greer does can ever be a reason to dismiss because the judges want a trial, but Greer can't manage to ever get it to trial so the case will just continue on forever until one of those two things changes.
 
This is bad news for us, if true, because it means that he's NOT tardguarding for the sake of the tard, he's doing it for himself, so we will continue to see leniency extended "as far as unreasonably possible" toward Russ.
It's not bad or unsurprising. The reasoning is awful but the fact it was revived on merit by the 10th circuit means a dismissal on merit would be extremely difficult. The recommendation that flips-flops in the middle about the server test seems to reflect that reality.

There are other dismissal motions based on misconduct that are pending. I think they have more legs as the 10th has not weighed in on conduct. I think the judges recognize at least how sticky the merits are and will be more likely to dismiss on other grounds that aren't on the merits. Chin up!
 
It's a catch 22 scenario nothing Greer does can ever be a reason to dismiss because the judges want a trial, but Greer can't manage to ever get it to trial so the case will just continue on forever until one of those two things changes.
We must imagine Sisuphus Hardin happy.
 
On the plus side at the rate this case is going Null may be dead and buried long before Mushmouth gets an actual ruling against him.

Maybe that's the plan, drag this shit out sooo long both judges will retire so we can get a honest judge on the case.
 
Ah did you not like the
"Noooo little baby infant Attorney CHILD.
It is YOU who is (oddly, bizarrely) running headlong against the opinion of my beloved boss"?
It's a fair gotcha! as far as they go. Hardin was being a bit smug citing his boss, but Bennett pulled a counterpoint from later in the same case.

Now, it's fair for Hardin (or anyone else) to expect the same judge to stay consistent with his own opinion within the same case. I don't know if Hardin missed the later reversal or chose not to include it. But clearly Barlow doesn't feel constrained by such mere logic, and Bennett is ready to handle his inconsistencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom