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

[YouTube Autist]

For some reason I am a retard, I thought Hardin was like 80 years old, and I was scared he would die before this case ended. While I'm still afraid he will die of old age before this case ends, That little gif made my day.

Hardin is in fact a strapping young man with a full head of hair, a functioning face, and an actual law degree.

ECF 269-270

Wyświetl załącznik 7168873

Glad to see Russ is still certifiably nuts. A few bits that leapt out at me:

This isn’t new. Defendants have plagued this case with abusive and annoying notices ever since Matthew Hardin, who isn’t even licensed to practice law in Utah and is a guest in this District under a pro hac vice admission, joined the case.

"Abusive and annoying" -- what, like witness tampering, sending profanity-laden screeds of no legal relevance, and calling the opposing attorney a "crazy man"? Also, it's rich that Russell derides Hardin as "[not] even licensed to practice law in Utah," when Russell himself is not even licensed to practice law on planet Earth.

This woman bought the land through false pretenses and had the land purposely demolished and put on a show for the demolition because she disagreed with the historic property’s subject matter.

What a clumsily phrased sentence. Can you really buy something "through" false pretenses? Can land be demolished? Is it possible to disagree with subject matter?

The Love Ranch South was the nicer, $1.2 million property that plaintiff would have loved to also manage had he had access to said amount of money, which it is undetermined if people he knows could have paid that much in cash.

This sentence is also one long bungle from start to finish.

REPORT HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THIS CASE [...] Not only are defendants twisting what a police report said, that has zero to do with this case, but they are causing unnecessary delay with this litigation by overburdening this Court with matters that have zero to do with this case.

Russell apparently finds the phrase "zero to do with this case" very compelling.

defendants sought to have Greer disclose irrelevant information regarding irrelevant information in Greer’s personal life

"Irrelevant information regarding irrelevant information" sums up the past four years of this case quite succinctly.

Russell accuses Hardin and co. of being frivolous seven times in five pages. I suppose Russell must find the accusations of frivolous behavior quite hard to take, so now he's spitefully flinging them back at Hardin.

 

[FamicomGorby]

What a clumsily phrased sentence. Can you really buy something "through" false pretenses? Can land be demolished? Is it possible to disagree with subject matter?

I assume he was trying really hard to not say brothel in his filing since he knows a boomer Utah judge isn't gonna like hearing about that.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

ECF 271

The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

 

[oh no its pipkun]

I like this consistent history of the plaintiff involving himself in other people's legal matters. First in the court and now law enforcement.

 

[FamicomGorby]

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

Well I guess that at least proves that the Magistrate is actually checking on the case. Might be a record for the fastest Greer has been DENIED.

 

[CEO of Gay]

This doesn't help Russ's case as much as he thinks he does.

You bring a suit to court, and claim you shouldn't have to pay any fees because you're too poor to do so? But when this is queried, and you claim that you weren't trying to buy a million dollar piece of real-estate, you were just trying to buy just a $100,000 piece of real estate? Even if that were true, any bank or collection of investors is going to want to see cash down, so you too have a stake and something to lose in your proposed enterprise.

So, you don't have the money to pay filing fees to the court, but you do have enough money to get the time of day from real-estate investors who'd be willing to fund your desire to purchase a brothel? These two things are mutually exclusive; they can't both be true at the same time.

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

TBH, as crazy as this case has been, I was honestly worried the judge might try to split the baby out of annoyance and charge both Russ and Hardin sanctions.

 

[facepalm]

The magistrate seems to not like Russ much

 

[oh no its pipkun]

Well I guess that at least proves that the Magistrate is actually checking on the case. Might be a record for the fastest Greer has been DENIED.

he didn't follow them cut and dry rules. this was easy to dismiss.

This doesn't help Russ's case as much as he thinks he does.

You bring a suit to court, and claim you shouldn't have to pay any fees because you're too poor to do so? But when this is queried, and you claim that you weren't trying to buy a million dollar piece of real-estate, you were just trying to buy just a $100,000 piece of real estate? Even if that were true, any bank or collection of investors is going to want to see cash down, so you too have a stake and something to lose in your proposed enterprise.

So, you don't have the money to pay filing fees to the court, but you do have enough money to get the time of day from real-estate investors who'd be willing to fund your desire to purchase a brothel? These two things are mutually exclusive; they can't both be true at the same time.


TBH, as crazy as this case has been, I was honestly worried the judge might try to split the baby out of annoyance and charge both Russ and Hardin sanctions.

I wouldn't want to get caught with the usual llc expense shenanigans in court.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The magistrate seems to not like Russ much

That's a bold take to make in this thread.

 

[CEO of Gay]

So, why is there a rule that the moving party first serve the motion for sanctions to opposing counsel 21 days before filing with the court? Is that to encourage opposing parties to work things out between themselves so the court doesn't have to rule on who's the bigger dipshit?

 

[obsdj]

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

What, if any, is the practical effect of a motion being denied as opposed to stricken in this case?

 

[oh no its pipkun]

So, why is there a rule that the moving party first serve the motion for sanctions to opposing counsel 21 days before filing with the court? Is that to encourage opposing parties to work things out between themselves so the court doesn't have to rule on who's the bigger dipshit?

that and you have to give the other side time to mount a defense.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So, why is there a rule that the moving party first serve the motion for sanctions to opposing counsel 21 days before filing with the court?

To give opportunity for the allegedly offending filing to be withdrawn

What, if any, is the practical effect of a motion being denied as opposed to stricken in this case?

None, I don't think.

 

[Allied-Mastercomputer]

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

Damn. Record time, too.

 

[obsdj]

None, I don't think.

If the motion to strike had been granted, would the filing have been removed from the record entirely? I was just wondering if choosing to deny rather than strike might have been a calculated move in order to keep the dipshittery fully in the record for future reference, like in the eventual trial, and if striking it would have removed that opportunity.

 

[talk talk talk]

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

That will leave a trauma lump.

 

[AnOminous]

Damn. Record time, too.

It's a no-brainer zero-discretion rule (as to the notification requirement). Russhole didn't even bother to pretend to be complying with the rule, and even violated it within hours of being informed that doing the frivolous and vexatious thing he did was against the rules.

Even if we're on the "magistrate dumbass judge is tard-guarding the tard" team, I'm not, at least not yet, he literally doesn't have the discretion to violate, flagrantly, very bright line rules.

Russhole didn't comply with Rule 11, he will never get relief under it. The rules are strict. Even for literal mental retards like Russhole.

So, why is there a rule that the moving party first serve the motion for sanctions to opposing counsel 21 days before filing with the court? Is that to encourage opposing parties to work things out between themselves so the court doesn't have to rule on who's the bigger dipshit?

Literally that. If parties can reasonably not waste the court's time with bullshit, act like adults, and not just spaz out like Nick Rekieta, that's awesome.

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

So threatening Greer's victim status or hooker access prompts him to move with a certain amount of swiftness and confidence he is in the right.

 

[obsdj]

Even if we're on the "magistrate dumbass judge is tard-guarding the tard" team, I'm not, at least not yet, he literally doesn't have the discretion to violate, flagrantly, very bright line rules.

But the judge hasn't acted on ECF 263 from last week, which is equally in violation of the same rule (but which Hardin chose not to move to strike).

 

[S.C.U.D.]

ECF 271
Wyświetl załącznik 7168993
The Magistrate told Russ to fuck off

Please Russ, hit us with the Motion to Reconsider. We need it.