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

[GaryGray]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the below statement. I thought it meant Greer was to file if he had a dispute as to Hardin's cost breakdown for the sanction. Not a motion as to why the sanction should be vacated. What do I know I am not an AI powered paralegal.

Guess poorly worded will be as close to a bizarre goof as can be expected now with Greer machine powered writing assistant.

 

[Post Reply]

ECF 366
Wyświetl załącznik 8039444
This is for Rule 11, not for the TRO thing

This filing reeks of ChatGPT coated in drool.

The sanction order rests on two statements: (1) Plaintiff’s assertion that defense counsel
violated the Standard Protective Order (“SPO”) by publishing un-redacted witness information,
and (2) a reference in a venue-transfer motion describing witness Steve Taylor as “eager to
testify.”
The first statement was an opinion based on observable facts—defense counsel’s filing that
included the names and telephone numbers of two witnesses. That opinion was a reasonable
inference drawn from the record and cannot be equated with a knowingly false claim. Rule 11
does not penalize opinions or legal arguments reasonably grounded in the available facts. See
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990)

In order for your "opinion" to be a reasonable inference, it would (at a minimum) have to
be based on your reading of the standard protective order. That's the lowest hurdle to jump and you fall flat on your face right there, Greee, because you never even bothered to read it.

The second statement concerning Mr. Taylor was, at most, poorly worded. When the motion
was written, Plaintiff had no notice of Mr. Taylor’s passing and was merely listing individuals
who had previously agreed to provide testimony. The wording “eager to testify” reflected that
past willingness; it was not intended to imply current contact or an updated confirmation. Courts
in the Tenth Circuit emphasize that Rule 11 is not a strict-liability rule and should not punish honest or reasonable mistakes.

Is it a honest mistake to attribute current words to a man whom you haven't spoken to in years, who you had a "falling out" with, and who is currently dead? "Is eager to testify" refers to his current state, not how he felt years ago, before you alienated him and he fucking died. That's called a lie.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I hope this time Hardin heads that off at the pass, and files a motion to submit a reply -- since, if I recall correctly, he's not actually allowed to just file a reply unless Barlow tells him to?

He's allowed to reply. He just doesn't have to because ordinarily the court tells him if it is necessary.

Also,

Can anyone see the issue with his citation here?

 

[obsdj]

He's allowed to reply. He just doesn't have to because ordinarily the court tells him if it is necessary.

Null claimed at the time that he wasn't allowed:

We're not allowed to reply unless asked for a response.

Granted, Null frequently misunderstands what is happening in his own case, but you appeared to back him up at the time. If it turns out that Hardin could have replied last time, why on earth did he not? The fuck?

 

[RodgerDodger]

ECF 366
Wyświetl załącznik 8039444
This is for Rule 11, not for the TRO thing

Daddy Save Meeeeee!!!!!

 

[GaryGray]

ChatGPT really latched onto the word reasonable.

Is it reasonable to not be notified when a friend has died? Is it reasonable to go years without talking to a friend? Is it reasonable to ignore court orders? Is it reasonable to spend over $10k on hookers? It does not help Russel's case to ask the court to look at if he has been reasonable.

 

[Botchy Galoop]

The M dash gives it away every time.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

He's allowed to reply. He just doesn't have to because ordinarily the court tells him if it is necessary.

Also,

Can anyone see the issue with his citation here?

Wyświetl załącznik 8039628

why is greee going on and on about "well-established broads"?

Also even if the cite was rite, it's not a defamation suit being brought here lol

 

[GaryGray]

The M dash gives it away every time.

You were not kidding 21 em dashes.

 

[obsdj]

Somebody help me out with this claim:



...Is he literally asserting that any litigant can blatantly just lie during the course of litigation -- as long as the lies occur within a filing related to the litigation? Boy howdy, that would be a fun precedent to set in Federal District Court.

Kinda loving this though:



You turd. Everything you have done in this case from day one has been a sham.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Null claimed at the time that he wasn't allowed:

He was wrong. A response doesn't have to be filed, but it is not prohibited.

but you appeared to back him up at the time.

I did not. I merely rated him "informative" and moved on. Unless I've missed some followup post

If it turns out that Hardin could have replied last time, why on earth did he not? The fuck?

'Cause it costs money and time and ordinarily isn't needed. The Judge is prohibited from agreeing with an objection without a separate order to respond, while he can overrule the objection without a needed response

Mr. Hardin foolishly assumed the judge would follow applicable rules.

 

[Throwing Romans]

Somebody help me out with this claim:

Wyświetl załącznik 8039659

...Is he literally asserting that any litigant can blatantly just lie during the course of litigation -- as long as the lies occur within a filing related to the litigation? Boy howdy, that would be a fun precedent to set in Federal District Court.

You bet your ass he is. He's taking litigant's privilege shield you from civil liability and extending it to the court itself, arguing that he can't be sanctioned for this.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

...Is he literally asserting that any litigant can blatantly just lie during the course of litigation -- as long as the lies occur within a filing related to the litigation?

He is indeed.

 

[GaryGray]

Is he literally asserting that any litigant can blatantly just lie during the course of litigation -- as long as the lies occur within a filing related to the litigation?

That appears to be the argument. As long as it is objectively reasonable he should be allowed to be as neglectful as he wants. Proof that there is a legal precedent for bizarre goofs.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

He is indeed.

I can't wait until he tries to establish the Seal of the Confessional applying to a Utah Federal Court somehow, and that everything is under it and violation thereof is hellfire!

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That appears to be the argument. As long as it is objectively reasonable he should be allowed to be as neglectful as he wants. Proof that there is a legal precedent for bizarre goofs.

The problem is he is not objectively reasonable, and in fact, knew or should have known that his claims are meritless, or in other words, he was the legal definition of reckless.

 

[talk talk talk]

Can anyone see the issue with his citation here?

Wyświetl załącznik 8039628

Without even getting to the merits, the citation is wrong because the Utah Reporter ceased publication in 1974. The official reporter is now West's Pacific Reporter, so the proper citation form would be:

Krouse v. Bower, 20 P.3d 895, 898 (Utah 2001).

 

[obsdj]

Mr. Hardin foolishly assumed the judge would follow applicable rules.

...Wow. There it is.

Welp, I'll just hang on to this for the next time somebody berates me for questioning Hardin's tactics.

 

[.iota.]

as has already been explained by the court, it is greee's obligation to confirm the "eagerness" of his witness.


no, but this court specifically advised that greee was required to do so.

futher, with regard to the "later falling-out" being an event "that occurred without notice", that is not what greee argued in his response to mr. hardin's motion for adverse interference. greee explained that the falling out in 2021 was the specific reason why he chose not to include steve taylor as a witness once the case was returned to utah in 2024 (ecf 225):


greee knew of "the falling-out", but chose to ignore it while he was arguing venue. however, once the case was transferred back to utah, steve taylor's testimony became a potential liability, so (as mentioned in this post) it was neglected.

also:

what a punk-ass bitch. he fails to comply with the magistrate judge's orders, and instead appeals directly to the district judge, which is exactly what he did the last time that he was sanctioned, and it worked. i can't wait to see what he does if it fails this time. i expect a whole lot of chatgpt prompts about "but muh tenth circuit said ..."

also, also, the audacity of greee chatgpt arguing first amendment protections while suing over insults is absurd.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the below statement. I thought it meant Greer was to file if he had a dispute as to Hardin's cost breakdown for the sanction. Not a motion as to why the sanction should be vacated. What do I know I am not an AI powered paralegal.

Wyświetl załącznik 8039578
Guess poorly worded will be as close to a bizarre goof as can be expected now with Greer machine powered writing assistant.
Wyświetl załącznik 8039606

He's attempting to do an end run around the Magistrate and is filing directly to the District Judge to get him to dismiss or reduce the sanctions. It's as expected an attempt to undo the thing that was done.