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

[Iron Hamster]

If you want me to be a Positive Polly for once, Greer has requested a trial by jury. We don't know if one will be granted, but if it is, I'd say we have a 50-50% shot that when the good people of Utah are exposed to Goofy Greer, whore monger extraordinaire, who in the very book he's sueing over admits he has multiple restraining orders against him, they will realize that 1) there is a public interest in keeping track of this loony menace to society and 2) grasp what the judges pretend they can't- that the Kiwi Farms is not Google and that linking to files on Google is not a crime. If Hardin can work in mentioning that every time they click on a link to The Dodo when they're on Boomerbook it takes them to The Dodos website, they should understand.

Any trial would surely be plightsperging as much as possible with little copyright litigation. Though a bench trial may keep it more grounded in copyright until they're beaten down by plightsperging.

 

[HackerX]

Russ will turn opening arguments into a goddamn filibuster.

Hell yeah. Obviously this thing going to trial (which will never happen in our lifetime because why would it?) is a net negative for Null, due to the simple fact of lawyer costs and the slight possibility the jurors (or judge) being actual retards who ultimately (or accidentally) side with Greee. BUT, no one can deny the lulz that would certainly ensue. By God, the lulz would ensue. It'd be tempting enough to actually fly to Utah and attend the trial to witness what can only be described as a once in a lifetime event.

I can only imagine how ill-prepared Russ would be. No structure. No plan. No notes. Just, as I'll paraphrase Hardin, "Russ spouting at the pen mouth", constantly being interrupted by the words "objection" and "sustained" (ofc I'm making the very poor and unfounded assumption we live in a sane world), while getting all flustered with drool. Seriously. If this thing ever managed to walk it's mangled self to trial, how would Russ even make it through opening arguments???

We got a taste of him struggling to speak with the judge in this case, but a great example was the one where he was on the stand after arriving an hour or so late. Where the judge, trying with all his infinite might, to coax out Russ's claim, to the point where it was basically like pulling teeth. Only for the judge, after spending all the time, effort, and restraint to baby Russ's claim out of him, to immediately squash him like a bug in front of everyone for effectively wasting everyone's time. Now extrapolate that over multiple days over a fraudulent lawsuit with a hell of a lot more history and context? I can only vaguely imagine the absolute disaster.

 

[Bogliacci]

constantly being interrupted by the words "objection" and "sustained"

I can imagine he'd change tactics to say that even objecting to his statements proves that Hardin hates him because of his disability.

 

[DumbDude43]

Hell yeah. Obviously this thing going to trial (which will never happen in our lifetime because why would it?) is a net negative for Null, due to the simple fact of lawyer costs and the slight possibility the jurors (or judge) being actual retards who ultimately (or accidentally) side with Greee. BUT, no one can deny the lulz that would certainly ensue. By God, the lulz would ensue. It'd be tempting enough to actually fly to Utah and attend the trial to witness what can only be described as a once in a lifetime.

I can only imagine how ill-prepared Russ would be. No structure. No plan. No notes. Just, as I'll paraphrase Hardin, "Russ spouting at the pen mouth", constantly being interrupted by the words "objection" and "sustained" (ofc I'm making the very poor and ill-founded assumption we live in a sane world), while getting all flustered with drool. Seriously. If this thing ever managed to walk it's mangled self to trial, how would Russ even make it through opening arguments???

We got a taste of him struggling to speak with the judge in this case, but a great example was the one where he was on the stand after arriving an hour or so late. Where the judge, trying with all his infinite might, to coax out Russ's claim, to the point where it was basically like pulling teeth. Only for the judge, after spending all the time, effort, and restraint to baby Russ's claim out of him, to immediately squash him like a bug in front of everyone for effectively wasting everyone's time. Now extrapolate that over multiple days over a fraudulent lawsuit with a hell of a lot more history and context? I can only vaguely imagine the absolute disaster.

can the parties in a civil suit like this interrogate each other as witnesses at the trial?
how about depositions? could we end up with video footage of hardin deposing russ, or russ deposing null?

 

[Unknown God]

Russ will turn opening arguments into a goddamn filibuster.


Having to tell a lawyer how to lawyer. Having to expect a lawyer and multiple judges to understand concepts that a 12 year old could understand. That embedding a link to an external party does not mean the content of that link is being hosted on the site you linked it to. This is shit has been around since the dawn of the internet.
If Amazon posts a 3 minute clip of Rings of Power to youtube, and I embed that video on this site, can some diversity hire at Amazon sue Null (completely ignoring youtube) because maybe somebody on here (neither me nor Null) said "THERE ARE NO NIGGERS IN THE SHIRE!!!"?

The future sucks.

You may not like it but lawyers and judges have to deal with cases that can involve literally every single facet of human knowledge. You simply can't expect them to know all the nuances about everything, no matter how biased you are about how easy and childish THING_I_AM_FAMILIAR_WITH is. You have to explain it to them. This is part of why discovery is so expensive, when you have to bring in experienced experts to talk about relevant technical aspects of the case, and who will certainly not waste their entire day going to court for free.

 

[the khat quaffer]

You may not like it but lawyers and judges have to deal with cases that can involve literally every single facet of human knowledge. You simply can't expect them to know all the nuances about everything, no matter how biased you are about how easy and childish THING_I_AM_FAMILIAR_WITH is. You have to explain it to them. This is part of why discovery is so expensive, when you have to bring in experienced experts to talk about relevant technical aspects of the case, and who will certainly not waste their entire day going to court for free.

Fine, bring in a 13 year old to explain it to them. He or she will gladly do so for half the costs so far.

I'm well aware that the wheels of justice move slowly and expensively. The real tragedy is that the innocent people who have done nothing wrong must surrender years of their lives (perhaps even behind bars) and bank accounts to see justice and sanity prevail...maybe not even in their lifetime. This shit is always so much easier in North Korea.

 

[Dumbledore's Onlyfans]

If the courts uphold the potential merit of Rusty's case, but dismiss it later on the technicality of his inability to prosecute the case, they avoid the politically icky issue of handing Null the win directly, while leaving the main issue open for a more competent plaintiff to take up at a later date.

 

[Thomas Talus]

This is always the case in a legal system monopolized by the state
It's a fundamentally unjust and rigged system

I'm not sure what sort of judicial system you are looking for; if they aren't a creature of the State, they do not represent The Law, or the ability to enforce outcomes via the monopoly on legitimized violence. If you get roped into the private judiciary, i.e., contractually-mandated arbitration, I can assure you it will be extremely rigged because your opponents will be the ones who set up and own the system.

One thing I think people who don't do this stuff for a living who are dooming over the outcomes of motions to dismiss lose sight of is that dispositive motions, by their very nature, are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

if they aren't a creature of the State, they do not represent The Law

If you abide by legal positivism, i.e. the idea that "law == whatever the state decrees", then there is really no hope for you
That position categorically excludes non-state law

or the ability to enforce outcomes via the monopoly on legitimized violence.

Enforcing law can be done without a monopoly on legitimized violence

 

[obsdj]

That embedding a link

Speaking of which, Dear Mr. Hardin, please never fucking use that word again in this case, except maybe when you explain on the record that it doesn't mean what you or the judges thought (citing that Junior Coder middle-school manual which even luddites should be able to comprehend).

 

[Thomas Talus]

If you abide by legal positivism, i.e. the idea that "law == whatever the state decrees", then there is really no hope for you
That position categorically excludes non-state law

The human laws we enforce on each other as a society are necessarily done through the state in some manner.

Enforcing law can be done without a monopoly on legitimized violence

You can seek to enforce your law on me according to your principals; I can shoot back according to my principals.

What you are talking about is simple warlordism. Which is great, as long as you're the biggest warlord, but has nothing to do with justness or not-riggedness.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The human laws we enforce on each other as a society are necessarily done through the state in some manner.

Who is "we" and what makes it "necessary"?

You can seek to enforce your law on me according to your principals; I can shoot back according to my principals.

You're not longer talking about law at this point.

 

[Thomas Talus]

Who is "we" and what makes it "necessary"?

Any group large enough to seek to enforce rules on each other. If you have multiple sub-groups but want to be able to enforce rules between members of different sub-groups without allowing such groups to freeze each other out, I don't see how some sort of central authority is avoidable. Do you want to be able to sue a Haredi who rear-ended your car? What if he claims that only a Haredi court has jurisdiction over him?

You're not longer talking about law at this point.

Without the ability to enforce compliance, laws are just words on the page. If there is no monopoly on legitimized violence, then using force to resist force is as valid a methodology as any other.

Laws exist so that we can resolve disputes without directly resorting to violence, which is how things would be done in a state of nature, but the possibility of violence is necessary to give the law force.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Any group large enough to seek to enforce rules on each other.

You're assuming what you'd need to prove. "Large group" does not logically entail "monopoly on violence". All it entails is dispute resolution. Monopoly is one possible structure, but you claimed it's a necessary structure. Why is it necessary?

Without the ability to enforce compliance, laws are just words on the page. If there is no monopoly on legitimized violence, then using force to resist force is as valid a methodology as any other.

Again equating enforcement with monopoly, they are not the same thing. Enforcement requires consequences, but it does not logically require a single entity banning all competitors.

 

[Thomas Talus]

You're assuming what you'd need to prove. "Large group" does not logically entail "monopoly on violence". All it entails is dispute resolution. Monopoly is one possible structure, but you claimed it's a necessary structure. Why is it necessary?

Again equating enforcement with monopoly, they are not the same thing. Enforcement requires consequences, but it does not logically require a single entity banning all competitors.

How do you enforce different outcomes between your competing non-monopoly legal systems?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

How do you enforce different outcomes between your competing non-monopoly legal systems?

That is not what I was arguing.
You claimed monopoly is necessary. I asked what makes it necessary.
Instead of defending that claim, you're shifting to how competing systems - which I never proposed - would work.
"Large group" is a description and not an argument. "Violence exists" is not the same as "monopoly violence is required".
What makes law necessarily state-based?

 

[The Un-Clit]

Take it to mass debates before you get this thread locked yet AGAIN you autists.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Speaking of which, Dear Mr. Hardin, please never fucking use that word again in this case, except maybe when you explain on the record that it doesn't mean what you or the judges thought (citing that Junior Coder middle-school manual which even luddites should be able to comprehend).

Yes, absolutely. The term should be "presenting a link", as an anchor is never embedded, but is merely a syntax used to present information. Barlow or Bennet (or realistically, one of their clerks) should go and read RFC-1866 and its related documents, as they have a very clear and specific language difference between the role of an anchor and an embedded element (such as an image).

 

[Debbie Macomber]

I think we'll get everyone's favorite... a scheduling conference.

As soon as the motion to dismiss is ruled on, can Hardin just start subpoenaing Russell and Amazon and everyone because discovery is no longer paused, or would he have to wait for the new scheduling conference to set dates?

 

[filthypenguin]

Take it to mass debates before you get this thread locked yet AGAIN you autists.

But how will Greer shit up the docket if the thread isn't locked?