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

[obsdj]

You wouldn't call being allowed to enter the system and submit to it an "access right"? Not being snarky, just a language thing, folx might be more picky about it in the legal sphere, especially in America.

The right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances is of course backed up by our First Amendment. But as already mentioned, access to electronic filing is a privilege. You can exercise your rights to file with the courts via hard copy and snail mail.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Lotta people mixing up legal rights and software permissions today.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

The right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances is of course backed up by our First Amendment. But as already mentioned, access to electronic filing is a privilege. You can exercise your rights to file with the courts via hard copy and snail mail.

If that "privilege" is offered to everyone and becomes the defacto standard for accessing the courts, it's a right. The internet isn't a privilege either despite the printing press being the method of mass communication. Removing it should be extraordinary. Courts that don't offer pro-se litigants access are on a short lifespan.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

ECF isn't a right.

Yes, but it is more work for the court to have to wrangle the issue of proper address and all the plightsperging that it is simpler to just let Greee electronically file.

Yes, they are treating Russ like a stubborn child throwing a tantrum.

 

[Tiresome]

Yes, but it is more work for the court

Literally everything people post about what the court should and should not be doing and what they expect is basically cut to ribbons by what I'm calling Gree's Razor, applicable to so many lolcow situations: "What is the least amount of work for those in charge?"

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

If that "privilege" is offered to everyone and becomes the defacto standard for accessing the courts, it's a right. The internet isn't a privilege either despite the printing press being the method of mass communication. Removing it should be extraordinary. Courts that don't offer pro-se litigants access are on a short lifespan.

It is actually generally considered most accessible and accommodating to permit pro se litigants to file by mail (and only sometimes by email) . This is particularly a point for imprisoned pro se litigants, but is generally extended to any. Postage is cheap (Russell is an idiot if he thinks FedEx is required; if that were the case there wouldn't be the three-day rule), and even in courts that require lawyers to file electroncally, hard copies are 99% allowed for pro se litigants on the theory that not everyone has reliable access to internet. So they are willing to retain a more manual and labor-intensive '(for the court) process in order to remove access barriers to poor/nonprofessional people.

There are 94 Federal district courts. Only one Federal district Court requires pro se litigants to file electronically (meaning via portal). The rest offer varying levels of permissive filing electronically (via portal or by email). For portal:

Local rules make clear that more than two thirds of the federal district courts permit self-represented litigants to use the court’s electronic filing system at least on a case-by-case basis. Twenty-nine courts generally prohibit it (31%). The Northern District of Texas requires self-represented litigants to use the court’s electronic filing system absent permission not to. Ten courts (11%) generally permit pro se electronic filing without individual permission. The remaining fifty-four courts (57%) permit self-represented litigants to request permission to use the electronic filing system.

As for email,

The rules for nine courts state that the court can accept pro se filings by email.1 An additional three courts have informed us that they also accept pro se filings by email.2 At least six courts allow electronic submission of filings to the court via online portal.3

(Utah is in the first group.)

Filing electronically (whether by portal or email) is not the de facto standard for pro se litigants, and that is intended as a help for them.

 

[DavidS877]

Is it time to point out again that Drooly/Green/Greee does not actually have 'ECF' access. He files by email with the clerk. He does get alerts from ECF to read stuff submitted in PACER, but he can't directly submit items.
You can tell because his documents get an additional stamp.
Greee:

Mr. Hardin:

The stamp gets applied when the poor clerk takes the drool soaked pdf and puts it into the actual electronic filing system.

 

[Hungry Fox]

-snip-

Winnemucca Fishing Expedition would be a baller commemorative shirt for a merch run. Some shit like a few trees, a lake, and a bigmouthed retard bass that cant close his stupid retard lips.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

Filing electronically (whether by portal or email) is not the de facto standard for pro se litigants, and that is intended as a help for them.

I believe having two tiers/standards (one for lawyers and one for non-lawyers) is on the way out. Depriving access is not the same as allowing multiple ways to file. Pro-se litigants are held to the same procedural rules and this should be enforced.

If there is a process to remove a lawyers access to ECF, it should apply to non-lawyers as well. Abusive litigants should be afforded this process.

For Russell, I would bet this judge splits the baby and retains Russell's ability to file electronically while ordering Greer to provide a valid mailing address to Hardin and the court, order Hardin to mail all of Hardin's ECF filings, and order the clerk to do the same. I'd bet the order says any returned mail would result in another "show cause." Like always, it will result in more work for Hardin, none for Greee and another backward bend by the court.

 

[AnOminous]

You wouldn't call being allowed to enter the system and submit to it an "access right"? Not being snarky, just a language thing, folx might be more picky about it in the legal sphere, especially in America.

Legally, it isn't a right, or they couldn't just deny it to you. Personally, I think it should be, but even if it were, Russ has essentially waived it by using the docket as his personal plightblog. The argument for it being a right is that it puts a pro se plaintiff or defendant at a competitive disadvantage because on top of the burden of being a nonlawyer facing someone with years of education and experience at being a legal Terminator, now you have to use the mail and maybe get your issue heard days later while the lawyer can file something instantly and, in theory, have the court immediately address it the same day if styled as an "emergency" motion.

However, legally it is a privilege, not a right. That may sound like legal positivism but it's just how law operates.

There are also private courts run by religious Jews called batei din (plural of bait din) where a rabbinical panel reviews cases and the participants agree to be bound by the bait din’s rulings.

The Roman Catholic Church also has similar canon law courts and parties can agree to be bound to its arbitral decisions and waive the right to litigation. This is not necessarily guaranteed to be enforced, but much like secular arbitration agreements, the presumption is enforcement.

Spoiler: rabbinical court sperging that went on longer than i'd planned

As for the rabbinical courts, secular courts have on occasion rebuked or conflicted with their decisions. The main fact situation I can think of is where the husband in a divorcing marriage spitefully refuses to grant a get (religiously required divorce document) to the wife, rendering her incapable of remarrying within the religion.

While secular courts cannot adjudicate religious law or overrule it, thanks to the First Amendment, they aren't obligated to facilitate it. So in some of these cases (mostly in the state of New York), while the court can't effectively overturn the rabbinical decision and force the husband actually to grant the get, it can invoke the unclean hands or other equitable doctrines and refuse to allow equitable remedies by the offending spouse against the other.

Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things. This is why you can't force a church to solemnize a gay marriage or other marriage that offends the tenets of the faith.

Despite this, while the court can't step in and actually order a religious act, it can take the spiteful act into question as a matter of equity.

I've no idea what the hell they do though. Perhaps it's where you go to appeal the refusal to annul your marriage when you want to remarry?

That's actually the sole reason the vast majority of normie Catholics would even interact with canon law.

There are even firms that specialize in canon law appeals.

https://www.churchannulment.com/

They were not actually given that power by the Constitution. They just assumed it of their own accord.

No they didn't. Incidentally that's Nick Rekieta's opinion, which should give you pause.

The Supreme Court would be a meaningless appendage if Congress could just pass laws saying you need a loicense to talk and they couldn't do a damn thing about it. They would be a meaningless appendage, and it is completely bizarre to think that the Article I, II and III powers were supposed to mean the President is a King, Congress can pass unconstitutional laws at will, and the judiciary is somehow supposed to be a completely meaningless appendage and rubber stamp to federal authority.

I'll also note Marbury v. Madison was decided when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive, and there was no substantial criticism of it by them. In fact, the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 78, make it quite clear that the system of checks and balances was supposed to include all three Article-created branches.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

Winnemucca Fishing Expedition would be a baller commemorative shirt for a merch run. Some shit like a few trees, a lake, and a bigmouthed retard bass that cant close his stupid retard lips.

Please let this happen. Halloween merch isn’t something I’ll even buy to wear around the house, but this is one I’d be tempted to wear in public. I love the idea of cow-specific merch being created and sold year-round (provided that’s even feasible with the infrastructure issues). There’s more than enough artistic talent here to make that possible.

The Roman Catholic Church also has similar canon law courts

Yes we discussed those a couple of days ago upthread.

Spoiler: Trying not to shit up the thread with OT

As for issues with religious divorces, I don’t think it’s the secular court’s role to intervene in a contract agreed to by all parties just because one of the parties later has regrets. There is a halachic prenup that avoids any future potential issues with the get being used as a bargaining chip. Many rabbis will not even consider officiating the weddings of couples who have not executed the halachic prenup.

 

[Gorilla Milk]

I'll also note Marbury v. Madison was decided when the Framers of the Constitution were still alive, and there was no substantial criticism of it by them. In fact, the Federalist Papers, especially Federalist No. 78, make it quite clear that the system of checks and balances was supposed to include all three Article-created branches.

I was just thinking that "Wasn't Madison a founding father", so he (and the other founding fathers) would know for a fact if that was what was intended or not - And by their silence, it clearly was.
Thread Tax: I really hope Rusty gets his electronic filing revoked. That + loss of "Poor Retard" status would be devastating for him.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Russ went through all the stages of grief on the first sanction

Denial: There's no reason I'm being sanctioned! I don't owe you a dime!

Anger: Respectfully, I will fight and appeal every award! You don't get to act badly and then beg me for handouts! In fact, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SHOULD BE SANCTIONED!!!

Bargaining: (which he succeeded at by getting the sanctions dropped to $1000, but that wasn't good enough) okay, deducting the $225.75 Null owes me makes for $774.25 but how about pending appeal I instead do a 10 peecent bond of the offset amount and also let's just round that down to $74 because why not?

Depression: Going quiet on the docket for weeks

And finally, Russell claims, Acceptance: I would've ACH'd Hardin the money but I didn't see the order

But it seems the additional $500 has started the process all over again

Denial: I didn't see that email, so please just $1000 like before!

Expect more Anger directed at Hardin and the Judge, more bargaining, like, "Okay, okay, I was sanctioned, but how about you meet me halfway and round down a little to $225 extra so offset is the original $1,000" Depression by going MIA again, and only when the order to show cause comes in, will Russell claim to have reached Acceptance of the $1500 and please let me just pay that instead of dismissing the case, or only half dismiss the case, please please please!"

 

[Swole McPole]

That's actually the sole reason the vast majority of normie Catholics would even interact with canon law.

I think they probably have a lot less to do with it these days. Back in the day, it was almost impossible to get an annulment unless your last name was Kennedy. These days, pretty well everybody who asks for one seems to get one.

There is a halachic prenup that avoids any future potential issues with the get being used as a bargaining chip.

The only reason I've even heard of a beit din is because of all those terrible stories about women who were being refused a get for years on end in order to hold the ex-wife's feet to the fire -- either to attempt to maintain an abusive marriage or to try and gain some financial advantage.

Winnemucca Fishing Expedition would be a baller commemorative shirt for a merch run. Some shit like a few trees, a lake, and a bigmouthed retard bass that cant close his stupid retard lips.

Another vote for the Winnemucca Fishing Expedition t-shirt. Matthew Hardin in a little boat, wrestling with a fish bearing Greer's face. Various Winnemucca points of interest like the Scott Shady Court Motel and the City Hall lining the river.

 

[The Dude]

Winnemucca Fishing Expedition would be a baller commemorative shirt for a merch run. Some shit like a few trees, a lake, and a bigmouthed retard bass that cant close his stupid retard lips.

The graphic could be His Royal Hardship with a big fishing pole hooking a large mouth bass with Russhole's face.

Edit: dammit...someone already made that joke. Serves me right for replying to a post just after I read it.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

ECF 354

 

[DavidS877]

Please let the court rule on something this week, one of the sanctions motions, anything really.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

Please let the court rule on something this week, one of the sanctions motions, anything really.

I quit looking at this thread for updates because of all the off topic BS. If something happens I assume @Useful_Mistake will make a community happenings post. I love to shit post and make jokes but this thread is not really the place.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

ECF 354
Wyświetl załącznik 7734111

Once again, Hardin correct the mis-cited cases.



'Judge, you can just do things.'




'It is not that difficult to file by mail, and Greer's citation works against him.'




Plight-sperging hoists Geer upon his own petard.




Missed opportunity to call it 'bizarre'. For shame, Matthew...




'It is for your own good!'

 

[Supplemental Authority]

While Defendants fully expect that they will eventually seek designation of Mr. Greer as a vexatious litigant, all Defendants have presently sought is the revocation of Mr. Greer’s access to the filing system via email.

Those be fighting words, Mr. Matthew. I wonder how Greer will respond to the charge he is vexatious. (That's assuming he even reads this filing.)

I also love Greer's comment in ECF 353 at 3 that "this Court seems to rely heavily on precedent." No kidding?!