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

[Hantavirus]

Good thing Russ hasn't realized that if he adds Google as a defendant then they'd be liable if he wins and have to pay sanctions and the like.

He actually explicitly stated (I think in the initial/revised complaint?) that he was aware the material was hosted on Google, but that Google would immediately remove the files in response to a DMCA, which he did not do because what he really wanted to do was to sue Kiwi Farms, a website.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

He actually explicitly stated (I think in the initial/revised complaint?) that he was aware the material was hosted on Google, but that Google would immediately remove the files in response to a DMCA, which he did not do because what he really wanted to do was to sue Kiwi Farms, a website.

Here you go - a screencap and the link to his filing

Per his own words, that is because they would have complied and made the lawsuit moot. Per his own words, he is suing because Null made fun of him
Wyświetl załącznik 7224888

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.148809/gov.uscourts.utd.148809.142.0.pdf

 

[HackerX]

Never mind the numerous, uniformly identical contradictory cases stating specifically that links to other sites, other than in very specific circumstances, including cases EXPLICITLY about Google Drive urls, say exactly the opposite.

My favorite bit is this. Let's make the bold assumption that this case will enter discovery at some point this decade. Let's also assume that Russ will successfully request the necessary logs within an accurate timeframe, and that Null will miraculously have 5+ year old logs which meet the criteria Russ is seeking (besides everything LOL). Let's assume once more Russ will be able to understand and interpret these logs.

Do you know how many times Russ will be able to determine that someone downloaded from that Google Drive link? 0. Zilch. Nada. The only information Russ could discern is how many times, and whom, clicked on the Google Drive link. That's it. IF THAT. Not even successfully viewed the Google Drive link. Just clicked on it. Null wouldn't have any additional information beyond that. Now could you allude to 'Well, if they clicked on the link they probably downloaded it.' Sure, yeah, but it's beyond reasonable to require a hell of a lot more information, data, and facts to make that assumption.

That's what's so hilarious. Even if the stars aligned for Russ, he stopped being a retard, and he somehow managed to move the lawsuit beyond him bickering over his own actions over the last year, he'd still have to convince other people. He has to convince a jury (or judge, IIRC he wanted a jury trial to garner tard sympathy) the preponderance of evidence is on his side when evidence only shows a post with a link to a Google Drive and they Null laughed at him.

Don't even get me started on those earlier assumptions though. I'm cackling at the idea of Null providing logs. Russ will be immediately confused. He'd have no idea how to even begin parsing them and God only knows how he'd interpret or correlate the data. Obviously, the sensible approach to handle that would involve paying a computer forensics expert to provide accurate findings and results, but this is Russell Greer. So LOL on that one.

I'm about 90% Russ believes logs are just a single thing that provide all the answers, but that expectation leads to a world of hurt. Either that, or he expects Null to research, analyze, and provide the specific data Russ needs as well as format it so Russ can present it at court. The latter will absolutely turn into it's own shitshow because Russ will argue that Null should perform discovery and provide forensic services in support of Russ, while Null likely won't have to provide shit beyond the raw logs. Plus a few other factors I won't go into because there's the slight potential it could help Russ,

 

[AnOminous]

Partially because the 10th said "Hey, we don't need the direct infringement to do this contributory infringement thing."

Except there WAS no direct infringement of the Google link because Russ never bothered to DMCA them.

 

[Some dude]

Except there WAS no direct infringement of the Google link because Russ never bothered to DMCA them.

Imagine, Greee alleging fact without supporting evidence.

 

[Irene and 22 others]

Do you know how many times Russ will be able to determine that someone downloaded from that Google Drive link? 0. Zilch. Nada. The only information Russ could discern is how many times, and whom, clicked on the Google Drive link. That's it. IF THAT. Not even successfully viewed the Google Drive link. Just clicked on it. Null wouldn't have any additional information beyond that. Now could you allude to 'Well, if they clicked on the link they probably downloaded it.' Sure, yeah, but it's beyond reasonable to require a hell of a lot more information, data, and facts to make that assumption.

Does Null even have that much information? I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that unless Null were running some kind of script (which he would never do anyway) on the site that captures anytime someone clicks a link and reports back to server, he would have no records of that. The server just sends the HTML containing the link to a browser, but whether anyone clicked on some off site link isn't something he would know.

At most Null would have the number of people who were served the page containing the link and perhaps the IP addresses of whoever requested it, but he doesn't retain data for very long so at most he would have a small amount of any overall data. However, that couldn't prove anyone actually clicked on the link. The only ones who would have that would be Google and they might not necessarily be able to determine if any of the people who did click it actually came from KiwiFarms unless they also have a log of IP addresses that could be cross referenced with some list that Null has or get some kind of referrer information

The only party that could possible know anything about how many people downloaded the file is Google. Someone with a better understanding of this may want to weigh in and give a better assessment.

 

[DragoonSierra]

Does Null even have that much information? I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that unless Null were running some kind of script (which he would never do anyway) on the site that captures anytime someone clicks a link and reports back to server, he would have no records of that. The server just sends the HTML containing the link to a browser, but whether anyone clicked on some off site link isn't something he would know.

At most Null would have the number of people who were served the page containing the link and perhaps the IP addresses of whoever requested it, but he doesn't retain data for very long so at most he would have a small amount of any overall data. However, that couldn't prove anyone actually clicked on the link. The only ones who would have that would be Google and they might not necessarily be able to determine if any of the people who did click it actually came from KiwiFarms unless they also have a log of IP addresses that could be cross referenced with some list that Null has or get some kind of referrer information

The only party that could possible know anything about how many people downloaded the file is Google. Someone with a better understanding of this may want to weigh in and give a better assessment.

Tracking cookies exist but I dont think this site has them.

 

[Debbie Macomber]

Didn't Hardin say he already completed Null's initial disclosures?

So Russ already knows the evidence he's asking for doesn't exist

 

[FamicomGorby]

Didn't Hardin say he already completed Null's initial disclosures?

So Russ already knows the evidence he's asking for doesn't exist

He did

Since Greer was trying to get Null to give him the info on two random users though it's pretty likely that he doesn't know what website logs would actually have in them. That shit is moot anyway since even if Null had IP address for both users, and they both signed up with emails that wouldn't immediately dox them, Greer wouldn't be able to do anything with the info he'd get.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

he expects Null to research, analyze, and provide the specific data Russ needs as well as format it so Russ can present it at court.

Russ will argue that Null should perform discovery and provide forensic services in support of Russ

This is exactly what would happen. We've already had a hint of this with the protection order that he thinks Null should pay to have sent to Greee, despite this being legally impossible.
His utter refusal to accept that the defence is not his personal assistant is one of the most mind boggling things I've ever come across. This is why Hardin has to stop reminding him of deadlines, it's feeding the delusion.

 

[John Andrews Stan]

His utter refusal to accept that the defence is not his personal assistant is one of the most mind boggling things I've ever come across.

I don’t actually want this to happen (for obvious reasons) but can’t help but fantasize about Russ losing this case, appealing, and freaking out when he finds out he has to collaborate with Hardin on a Joint Appendix — and pay half the $XXXX cost of printing it.

 

[The Dude]

If Russhole were to somehow successfully subpoena the site logs, and if this were a possible option, I say Null should take the malicious compliance route. Send Russhole pages and pages of site code printed out with a note that says "If the info is still available, it's in there somewhere. Good luck!"

But I seem to recall that Null doesn't keep user data like that for freedom of speech and privacy reasons. I could be wrong.

 

[FamicomGorby]

If Russhole were to somehow successfully subpoena the site logs, and if this were a possible option, I say Null should take the malicious compliance route. Send Russhole pages and pages of site code printed out with a note that says "If the info is still available, it's in there somewhere. Good luck!"

Greer was at least kind of specific with the info he wanted in the subpeona he tried serving while discovery is still stayed, though not sure why he thinks the site would actually have their names.




IP addresses aren't kept for inactive accounts, which Moseph Jartelli Russtard has been for a while. Registration emails are obviously kept, but if they didn't use their regular email address then the only way to identify them from there would be to subpoena the email host which still could net no identifiable info if it's just a burner account.

The ways of Greer are a mystery, why did he decide to almost randomly add two users to the suit? His worst case scenario would be if he actually did manage to serve both of them and ended up with two additional lawyers in the case telling him he's a retard.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

IP addresses aren't kept for inactive accounts, which Moseph Jartelli has been for a while.

????? Bro has been posting as of Wednesday.

 

[DHugo]

????? Bro has been posting as of Wednesday.

Let that pussy know that Greer is coming for his well-deserved footsies.

 

[FamicomGorby]

????? Bro has been posting as of Wednesday.

Yeah got it mixed up, it's Russtard that's been inactive for years

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Send Russhole pages and pages of site code printed out with a note that says "If the info is still available, it's in there somewhere. Good luck!"

malicious compliance to discovery has already been thought of years ago, and the court can sit on it pretty hard. not recommended.

of course, we never really had subpoena the dead before in discovery, so hmmmm.

 

[lol cow supreme]

????? Bro has been posting as of Wednesday.

Thats pretty inactive. IP's shouldn't be around a few seconds after logout, if at all. Someone from Wednesday thats old news.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Except there WAS no direct infringement of the Google link because Russ never bothered to DMCA them.

So, he's trying to make a contributory infringement case, where no direct infringement has ever been alleged or proven? If no direct infringement has been alleged or proven, how can anyone contribute to it? Of course, this makes about as much sense as the time travel ruling by the 10th, so absolutely perfect for this case.

Tracking cookies exist but I dont think this site has them.

The site only retains IP data for 30 days, which is essentially useless if you are using a VPN. So, anyone hoping for anything beyond 30 days is kidding themselves that anything useful actually exists.

 

[Dyn]

The site only retains IP data for 30 days, which is essentially useless if you are using a VPN.

Also essentially useless if Greer has to figure out how to subpoena an ISP to identify you.