Looks like we have some movement on the case. Magistrate Judge Bennett concedes he erroneously transferred the case to Florida, and it looks like he has "granted Mr. Greer's motions" so Utah has the case apparently:
"Mr. Greer frames his motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60, however, these rules apply only to a “final judgment,” which an order transferring a case is not. Thus, the court instead reconsiders its prior order based in part on the law of the case doctrine."
Yes, I know what will fix a poor decision, an even poorer and outright hostile decision to the opposing party. The judge is a fag.
How do you reach that dumbfuck conclusion at all?!?
It's a weird ouroboros. They made the decision when there was no jurisdiction, but now that there is, that decision is invalid because there is jurisdiction, though if there were not, it would be valid.
Stating that harassment occurred even in a background section of an opinion implies it's a settled matter, which it is not, and is not even directly relevant to a copyright claim, which is the basis for the action. So, I'm annoyed.
They copy that statement from the complaint. Interestingly, it might be one of the few times they can't do that, as the court found that the harassment claim was decided in Null's favor.
How illegal would it be to represent yourself while Hardin feeds you lines through an earpiece?
Not illegal, and not unethical in Utah, so that's 100% a possibility, although the 10th Circuit disagrees as it relates to appellate matters "We hold that the participation by an attorney in drafting an appellate brief is per se substantial, and must be acknowledged by signature." Some ghostwritting may still be permissible on the trial level "We caution, however, that the mere assistance of drafting, especially before a trial court, will not totally obviate some kind of lenient treatment due a substantially pro se litigant." Their main conclusion was "We hold today, however, that any ghostwriting of an otherwise pro se brief must be acknowledged by the signature of the attorney involved." Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2001). This could still be good, as there is difference between motions and briefs.
New doc: