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

Greer v. Moon 2:20-cv-00647 — District Court, D. Utah

  • Docket No.
    2:20-cv-00647
  • Court
    District Court, D. Utah
  • Filed
    15 Wrz 2020
  • Terminated
    22 Kwi 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:0501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    6 Sie 2024

Parties (4)

Parties
Lolcow, LLC, Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, Russell G. Greer

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 127)

# Date Description Filing
6 Sie 2024 Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett. (kpf)
113 15 Maj 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 28 Kwi 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 25 Kwi 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) 1 2 3
110 25 Kwi 2024 NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL that case has been transferred to Northern District of Florida. (kpf) (Entered: 04/26/2024)

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
    19 Mar 2024
  • Terminated
    10 Cze 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    16 Paź 2024

Parties (4)

Parties
LOLCOW LLC, RUSSELL G GREER, KIWI FARMS, JOSHUA MOON

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 155)

# Date Description Filing
16 Paź 2024 ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE ZACHARY C BOLITHO notified that action is needed Re: 132 Mail Returned. (mah)
132 15 Paź 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) 1 2
131 10 Lip 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) 1 2
130 10 Cze 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) 1 2
129 10 Cze 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
    10 Cze 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:0501 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    Plaintiff
  • Last Filing
    21 Cze 2026

Parties (4)

Parties
Lolcow LLC, Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, Russell G. Greer

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 525)

# Date Description Filing
486 21 Cze 2026 Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re 480 Defendant's MOTION to Unseal Document 1 filed by Russell G. Greer and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon, Counter Claimants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (publicly-filed Tennessee in forma pauperis application), # 2 Exhibit B (publicly-filed Tennessee order denying in forma pauperis status), # 3 Exhibit C (publicly-filed Nevada in forma pauperis applications))(Hardin, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2026) 1 2 3 4
485 21 Cze 2026 Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re 478 Defendant's MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support as to both claims and counterclaims filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon, Counter Claimants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Hardin, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2026) PDF
484 21 Cze 2026 Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re 477 Defendant's MOTION to Amend Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Motion to Reconsider)Defendant's MOTION to Vacate 449 Modification of Docket, 453 Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Mo filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Mr. Greer did not timely file because he "fell asleep"))(Hardin, Matthew) (Entered: 06/22/2026) 1 2
481 18 Cze 2026 RESPONSE to Motion re [477] Defendant's MOTION to Amend Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Motion to Reconsider)Defendant's MOTION to Vacate [449] Modification of Docket, [453] Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Mo filed by Plaintiff Russell G. Greer. (jrj) PDF
483 17 Cze 2026 RESPONSE to Motion re [480] Defendant's MOTION to Unseal Document [1] filed by Russell G. Greer and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff Russell G. Greer. (jrj) PDF

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
    26 Paź 2021
  • Terminated
    15 Paź 2023
  • Nature of Suit
    3820 Copyright
  • Last Filing
    15 Cze 2026

Recent Filings

# Date Description Filing
10010756599 19 Paź 2022 [10949330] Appellant's reply brief filed by Russell G. Greer. Served on 10/20/2022. Manner of Service: email. Word/page count: 6487. This pleading complies with all required privacy and virus certifications: Yes. [21-4128] [Entered: 10/21/2022 07:58 AM]
Russ filed his motion for sanctions against Mr. Hardin
Wyświetl załącznik 7147324
One problem is that this wasn't served on Mr. Hardin prior. See (from ECF 262):
Screenshot 2025-03-28 162621.png
Without having read the entire motion, it appears facially invalid from the get go
 
One problem is that this wasn't served on Mr. Hardin prior. See (from ECF 262)

I was just coming here to screech this. So what is the likely outcome -- will the judge tell the Clerk to strike it since it was improperly filed? Does Hardin need to make a motion (thereby racking up more fees) for it to be stricken? What's the protocol here for people to whom the rules actually apply?
 
WELL IT'S ALLL GOOD THEN! Sorry to bother you with things like EVIDENCE
Screenshot 2025-03-28 163902.png
will the judge tell the Clerk to strike it since it was improperly filed? Does Hardin need to make a motion (thereby racking up more fees) for it to be stricken? What's the protocol here for people to whom the rules actually apply?
The Magistrate could order the Clerk to strike it on his own, but really Mr. Hardin will probably have to make a motion out of it.
 
Russ filed his motion for sanctions against Mr. Hardin
Pack it in boys, it's NEVER BEEN SO OVER!

1743172753173.png

Oh my God, Russ and I nitpicked on the same thing. We're retards on the same wavelength. It's Joever for me as well.

There are two SPOs listed on the website... The link in the docket text goes to the first one, for cases filed on or after 12-1-2023. But this case was filed back in 2020, which means the older version of the SPO is the one that applies.

Except Russ is being Russtarded, because the link actually did work. And he could have arrived at both SPOs by searching on his own, which he clearly had to do if he claims the court-provided link doesn't work. My helpful picture of Hitler only had the older SPO encoded.
 
I cannot help but notice that Greer at no point acknowledges in this filing that both the Magistrate AND the District judges have clearly indicated, in so many words, that no violation of the SPO took place. But this fact is inconvenient, so Greer just ignores it as per usual.
 
A lesson in why you should have someone look over your legal writing:

Greer says that he should not be "sanctioned over every mistake". Mistake implies an accident - lack of wilful behavior. Let's call that, oh, lets say inadvertent. What does Greer also say? That "inadvertent" actions should nevertheless be subject to sanctions. Well, thank you, Russ for admiting you should be sanctioned.
Screenshot 2025-03-28 165241.png
Screenshot 2025-03-28 165256.png
I cannot help but notice that Greer at no point acknowledges in this filing that both the Magistrate AND the District judges have clearly indicated, in so many words, that no violation of the SPO took place. But this fact is inconvenient, so Greer just ignores it as per usual.
I think this might be in itself sanctionable, and if I remember correctly, Mr. Hardin made a point of it.
 
1743173685249.png

Has Greer seen the light? Is he now abandoning his "Defense is posting everything to KF" theory?
 
Russ asking for $2,000 so he can drop that money on a night with a whore is next level.

The fact that the judges have repeatedly told him the Protective Order was not violated and he's filing sanction telling them they're wrong is probably going to go very very well.
 
Hardin should begin patposting in his correspondence with Greer.

"You have been instructed, many thousands of times, to stop saying I violated the SPO. I am not liable for sanctions, child. It is YOU violated who the rules of the court. Enjoy prison."
 
1. I didn't read the SPO
2. I assumed I didn't have to do anything
3. Kiwi Farms bad
4. I can't provide any proof of anything because my email sucks :^)
5. no u
6. Please sanction opposing counsel because I am retarded and can't do anything right
I am really looking forward to how the court bends itself over AGAIN to ignore this absolute wealth of retardation and straight up contemptuous behavior. I am dying to see the transcript of how fucking Bennett will cope with having to explain for the third time to this tard that the SPO was not violated and still let him get away with this shit.
 
Russ, in his SPO sperging, reminds of the sweatlord (although in his case it should be droollord) waacfag warhammer players that try to argue what a rule intends to say, rather than what it actually says. what they want to make you believe the rule says is invariably advantageous to them.
I hope that Hardin finally says "enough is enough" and slaps him in the face with a motion so hard, it uninstalls his moebius.exe. Excited for his reply to this.
 
I'm predicting at least one more filing from Russ that insists Hardin violated the SPO before the zoom call.
Ding ding ding!

spo.PNG

Surely this renders his entire argument moot? He doesn't have a leg to stand on as no matter what he insists, this falls under inadvertent failure to designate. Hardin cannot face any liability for disclosing the information, even after it becomes correctly designated. He's clearly now read the SPO yet seems to only be reading the parts he wants to.
 
He's clearly now read the SPO yet seems to only be reading the parts he wants to.
No version of the SPO lists witnesses as "protected" or "confidential", and that by itself makes it all pointless. The motion is also made in violation of the appropriate rules, as Greer has been informed by Mr. Hardin.
 
No version of the SPO lists witnesses as "protected" or "confidential", and that by itself makes it all pointless. The motion is also made in violation of the appropriate rules, as Greer has been informed by Mr. Hardin.
And he obviously read the email, he is just seething so hard that he literally does not want to talk to Hardin at all for any reason, rules be damned. He's a fucking child. I don't know what the magistrate will try to do if he insists on going through discovery to the end because Greer simply hates Hardin and will never cooperate.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole