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

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

I was agreeing with you.

My bad homie, you definitely were.

 

[LiquidChrisRespecter]

$250? Greee, you little worm.

Dismissal is a non-monetary admonition.

Then we can start to break down exactly how much he owes Jersh and Mr Hardin for the past 5 years of clowning.

 

[obsdj]

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.

So he has failed not only to file his show-cause material on Rule 37 as ordered, he has also failed to file the direct response he was ordered to file to the Rule 11 order. But he did keep it to ten pages, oddly, bizarrely, hilariously.

 

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

Kiwi Farms is the only place where you can agree with a user and still get shit from them for agreeing. Love you guys.

Double post, but I'm gay and also a faggot

Edit: Not even a fucking double post. I should be threadbanned for a week.

 

[talk talk talk]

Greee's argument that the litigation privilege against defamation suits somehow shields him from Rule 11 sanctions is itself so bad that it could be considered sanctionable itself. Sanction-ception, if you will.

 

[GaryGray]

So he has failed not only to file his show-cause material on Rule 37 as ordered, he has also failed to file the direct response he was ordered to file to the Rule 11 order. But he did keep it to ten pages, oddly, bizarrely, hilariously.

I wonder if he used https://paynull.lol/ as a reference to what requires a response. If I read that page fast I could think that October 14th was the deadline to respond to the Rule 11. Not understanding that each image is talking about a different sanction rather than the same one.

Greer on his phone he only read.

 

[Sneed Force One]

How can you have a "later falling-out" without "notice"? The inherent nature of a "falling-out" is via communication, else, how do you know of said "falling-out"?
I'm truly baffled.

 

[Harvey Danger]

There's so much wrong here, I could pick this apart all day. But this is a time travel case, so let's go with chronological issues.



First off: how can a falling-out occur without notice to Plaintiff? Steve can't just have a disagreement with Russ on his own. How would Russ even know Steve had falling-out of eagerness with him, if not for his personal awareness of the situation? Did Steve send a nasty voicemail to Russ from beyond the grave?

Second: the falling-out occurred before Steve was listed as an eager witness.

I sperged about this back when Greer responded to the Adverse Inference motion. By Greer's own timeline, in 2021 Steve said he would be a witness, then they had a falling out the same year. That didn't happen "without notice", Greer was fully aware of it 3 years before listing him as a witness in the 2024 re-transfer pleading.


The falling-out happened in 2021, the 10th reversed in December 2023, Steve died January 2024, the re-transfer motion was May 2024.

Greer goes on to say

"After the tenth circuit reversed the case, Greer could never reach Steve to reconfirm if he would be a witness. Regardless, Greer listed him in his motion to retransfer"

So Greer knowingly listed Steve as a witness, even after failed attempts to re-confirm, even after the falling-out. There was no time between 2023 and 2024 where Steve could have held a unilateral falling-out without notifying Greer. His un-eager status should have been assumed before he died, as evidenced by Greer suddenly trying to re-confirm his eagerness before claiming it.

These were not "later" events, they were prior events that Greer knew about in May 2024. They did not "occur without notice", they were events driven by Greer himself. They didn't retroactively make his claim sanctionable; at least the falling-out pre-emptively made his claim sanctionable.

Stop with the time travel BS, Russ.

Edit: lol I took so long typing 2 other people pointed out the same thing. I claim my Constitutional right of time travel to avoid Late stickers.

 

[obsdj]

I wonder if he used https://paynull.lol/ as a reference to what requires a response.

Doesn't matter because he hasn't filed a response (both were due yesterday). He filed an objection, directed at the District Judge.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Rate me rainbows, but I'm hopeful Barlow is getting out his big red DENIED stamp after lunch.

 

[goblin enby]

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)

This is one of the most egregious examples yet of how he simply writes whatever he thinks will get him out of his latest predicament, with no regard as to its truth or consistency with anything else he's previously said. Hardin has pointed this out multiple times but from a non-lawyer perspective, this just comes across as basically deliberate fraud.

 

[BIG BILL HELL'S]

How can you have a "later falling-out" without "notice"?

First off: how can a falling-out occur without notice to Plaintiff?

To be fair, if Steve suddenly and completely ghosted Rusty a reasonable inference could be drawn that they had some sort of "falling out".

At least, that's the inference I would draw.

 

[obsdj]

At least, that's the inference I would draw.

Would you then fraudulently claim in a court filing that the person who ghosted you was eager to testify on your behalf, some three years after said ghosting?

 

[RodgerDodger]

Doesn't matter because he hasn't filed a response (both were due yesterday). He filed an objection, directed at the District Judge.

I'm mildly hopeful that his slapping it in Barlow's face this morning demanding that the District Judge "undo the thing that was done" might piss him off enough to look at the last few docket entries. Take note that Greeee has failed to respond to the Rule 37 show cause order. And take it as a clean and unappealable dismissal.

 

[DavidS877]

I wonder if the court can treat this as his Rule 11 response brief as it did come after Mr. Hardin's filing. Just assume the poor little pro-se litigant filed it with the wrong title.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

"Not intended to imply current contact"?

Looks like the AI has started regurgitating Moorish/Sovereign Citizen filings. This could get very funny. How long until Greee starts wearing a fez, arguing about the fringe on flags and demanding a transfer to a tribal court?

 

[Bogliacci]

I'm mildly hopeful that his slapping it in Barlow's face this morning demanding that the District Judge "undo the thing that was done" might piss him off enough to look at the last few docket entries. Take note that Greeee has failed to respond to the Rule 37 show cause order. And take it as a clean and unappealable dismissal.

I've been beaten like Hasan's dog by this court into realizing that any hope for a logical (ie good) response from the judges is useless until it's been filed

 

[obsdj]

I'm mildly hopeful that his slapping it in Barlow's face this morning demanding that the District Judge "undo the thing that was done" might piss him off enough to look at the last few docket entries. Take note that Greeee has failed to respond to the Rule 37 show cause order. And take it as a clean and unappealable dismissal.

I'm hoping one of the judges calls for a new hearing, because that would be the most entertaining for us.

And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

 

[DavidS877]

And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.

Which, like Greee, mostly just eats and shits all over the place.

 

[.iota.]

may i just say that i'm particularly fond of how greee's use of the word 'eager' has come back to haunt him, especially after he tried to deny that he ever used the word in the first place (ecf 221):