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

[HackerX]

The real question is Russ spergly fighting the IFP stuff because he's afraid he defraud the court (well, more fraud than his usual fraud. The type of fraud that'll get this case dismissed at a minimum), or is he mostly afraid that his .... intimate dealing.... are gonna get out and he's gonna get made fun of? My bet is the latter. Also, that's how you do a play on words, Russ. Jesus Christ.

 

[obsdj]

'Should cabin' is that a common law phrase? There's no way Russ picked that turn at random, AI maybe?

AI definitely. He doesn't even know what witnesses are for, or what "discovery is paused" means.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Do my eyes deceive me, or is this AIslop filing completely bereft of any caselaw citations whatsoever?

There is one citation, but...


Am I the tard here, or is this explicitly supposed to be for prisoners?

Spoiler: I am potentially the tard

GreerGPT doesn't cite to any specific section or paragraph, just the entirety of "28 USC 1915". The whole thing references prisoners, I can't find any paragraph that references non-prisoners explicitly. The last bit makes it crystal clear that Russ can't bend the meaning to be "prisoners of circumstances" or whatever good faith honest mistake whoopsy doodle he'll try to claim.



Edit: if the Court somehow finds that this applies to Russ, then Hardin's answer to the AI's plightsperging is conveniently located at (e)(2):

 

[DHugo]

Am I the tard here, or is this explicitly supposed to be for prisoners?

He is a prisoner of society

 

[obsdj]

There is one citation, but...

I said caselaw, and 1915 is what Hardin has thankfully been repeating over and over in recent filings to remind the damn judges that dismissal is mandatory ("shall") if the allegation of poverty in the IFP application is untrue.

We discussed the "prisoner" thing a bit upthread, TL;DR is it does apply to non-prisoners, if it didn't then Greer wouldn't have gotten it in the first place.

 

[mindlessobserver]

ECF 414
Wyświetl załącznik 8289522
Wyświetl załącznik 8289523

WTF is wrong with this tard. You can't oppose an evidence preservation order. Its a notice that you need to preserve evidence and if you happen to "accidentally" destroy the evidence, it can be used against you in the light most disadvantageous to your case. Its not a court order. What did Greer even learn at that Paralegal school?

FFS, this is him basically telling the court he WANTS to destroy evidence.

 

[A_right_horrorshow]

Oh Russy. It's not up to you to determine "what is relevant" when it comes to preservation of evidence. That's up to the Judge. And since Judge Stickinthemud doesn't seem to want to rule on anything right now, Hardin is just simply doing his due diligence and PRESERVING EVERYTHING. So slobber, whine and throw your toys out the pram all you like. You have no power over the court, Hardin or your various payment processors to obfuscate any prositution payments you may have been making all these years whilst claiming poverty to the court.

Cope and sneed Shitlips.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

Greer thinks sending whores money is "reasonable consumer spending" and insists that Hardin doesn't have all the facts so he shouldn't be obligated to preserve those facts.

Also insists again that his copyright case is airtight which is why Hardin is doing this, despite Greer's inability to present any evidence or witnesses of any kind.

the quote is

Plaintiff relied on settled law holding that a litigant need not be destitute to qualify for IFP status, only unable to pay the fee without sacrificing basic necessities"

paying for hookers is a basic need. wonder how the judge(s) will rule.

At that same time, Plaintiff was preparing to relocate from Utah to Nevada. Plaintiff remained responsible for Utah rent, advance Nevada housing costs, U-Haul and moving expenses, and ordinary living expenses associated with a cross-state relocation. In light of these obligations, Plaintiff reasonably believed that paying the filing fee would impose an undue hardship.

This part will have to be proved by Russ isn't it? because he paid hookers during the same period.

FFS, this is him basically telling the court he WANTS to destroy evidence.

he's admitted to not having any of the uhaul receipts or the car lease receipts aside from a credit report that said it was paid in full (did he have any financial help paying for it?). i doubt he's going to have the bills for either apartment.

 

[Third World Aristocrat]

Do my eyes deceive me, or is this AIslop filing completely bereft of any caselaw citations whatsoever?

Not that this is worth much, but ChatGPT agrees with you that it seems like AI slop:

Why this smells like “AI slop”​

• The document sounds like law.
• It uses correct buzzwords and abstractions.
• It confidently asserts conclusions.
• But it never grounds those conclusions in caselaw.

That pattern is extremely characteristic of:

• AI-assisted drafting without legal refinement, or
• A human who used AI prose and failed to do the legal homework afterward.

A competent attorney — or even a careful pro se litigant — would instinctively drop at least one citation per major claim. Even bad briefs usually manage that.

 

[obsdj]

FFS, this is him basically telling the court he WANTS to destroy evidence.

I think it's entirely fair to say he HAS destroyed evidence.

By the way, there's another aspect of 28 USC 1915 that Hardin might want to add a bit of focus to, in addition to that "shall" bit:

(e)(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—​

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;​

Emphasis mine. Greer is fixating on this idea that since he paid the fee, the matter is resolved and it's too late to address 28 USC 1915, but oops, the court SHALL dismiss the case AT ANY TIME if they find out you fucking lied when you applied for IFP status, you turd.

 

[Catboy Ranch Dressing]

We literally have this, back around ECF 50 or something. He kept crying that he needed time to "secure counsel" and then finally revealed that they wanted money.

The best part of those filings was Greer repeatedly referring to Null being "well-oiled."

 

[Harvey Danger]

This part will have to be proved by Russ isn't it? because he paid hookers during the same period.

"Mr Greer, how many times did you get your dick wet during the summer of 2020? Will your financial records confirm your story?"

 

[oh no its pipkun]

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;​

are there any carve outs for "basic necessities" in a general sense? because he's making a distinction between destitute and basic needs that doesn't follow if destitute and poverty are to mean the same thing.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;
Emphasis mine. Greer is fixating on this idea that since he paid the fee, the matter is resolved and it's too late to address 28 USC 1915, but oops, the court SHALL dismiss the case AT ANY TIME if they find out you fucking lied when you applied for IFP status

At any time can also be Q3 2029
Sneed

 

[goblin enby]

The real question is Russ spergly fighting the IFP stuff because he's afraid he defraud the court (well, more fraud than his usual fraud. The type of fraud that'll get this case dismissed at a minimum), or is he mostly afraid that his .... intimate dealing.... are gonna get out and he's gonna get made fun of? My bet is the latter. Also, that's how you do a play on words, Russ. Jesus Christ.

At this point he's just hardwired to oppose absolutely anything Hardin says, no matter what it is

 

[obsdj]

are there any carve outs for "basic necessities" in a general sense? because he's making a distinction between poverty and basic needs.

Golly gee I don't know, Greer didn't cite any caselaw to back up that assertion!

 

[DavidS877]

This part will have to be proved by Russ isn't it? because he paid hookers during the same period.

And this is what he's trying to avoid by letting the ebidance be destroyed by the payment companies on their normal schedule.

Really this whole filing is shit. "generalized assertions about third-party retention policies" yes, that's how this works, he has to guess the evidence will be destroyed.
"relevance and risk of loss. Defendants have shown neither" yes, IFP fraud, evidence destruction on a normal schedule.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

ECF 415

 

[Kosher Dill]

I like the part about "hypothetical future discovery". Isn't that what preservation orders are for? If it was actual, present discovery then Hardin could just ask for it right now.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

"relevance and risk of loss. Defendants have shown neither" yes, IFP fraud, evidence destruction on a normal schedule.

those hooker texts regarding payments are going to have to come into the record now.