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

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Wyświetl załącznik 8379730

I don't know why this simple sentence makes me laugh so much, but it does.

There's an entry for random_text.txt if I ever read one.

See, Greer sometimes DOES improve! Often he’s complexly wrong; sometimes imaginary wrong, but when he works at it he can just be simply wrong.

 

[BoomerPrime]

Sadly my actual job is cutting into my reloading this thread job.

It sucks when work gets in the way of actual, meaningful shitposting forum commentary. Thank you for your efforts though!

I'm curious if the reason Russ forgot he's attempted this type of sanction before was because he's a retard, or ChatGPT wasn't aware of it and Russ glanced through without catching it.

Can't it be both?

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

I cannot understand how Greer doesn't understand the relevance of Amazon's information in a COPYRIGHT case.

Anyone with 0.00001% of a brain would realize that you need to show how the alleged infringement impacted sales(or in this case made no difference at all). And really this should have been a disclosure Greer made, along with every other location his book (wasn't) sold.

I imagine that’s why Hardin declined to explain. The relevance is self-evident and he neither works for Greer or for free. It’s not his job to educate you, Greer.

 

[BoomerPrime]

I imagine that’s why Hardin declined to explain. The relevance is self-evident and he neither works for Greer or for free. It’s not his job to educate you, Greer.

I love Russ' counter-offensive to Hardin's refusal to do his job for him: "oh yeah, well then I decline the meeting you offered that I'm supposed to have (in accordance with the rules)! So THERE!"

Brilliant.

 

[obsdj]

I imagine that’s why Hardin declined to explain. The relevance is self-evident and he neither works for Greer or for free. It’s not his job to educate you, Greer.

Besides which, it's just a disclosure like all the other disclosures. Hardin duly provided the info he has on the witnesses, in private via email, and what they're expected to be able to testify to as required by the rules. He doesn't have to lay out his entire theory of defense at this stage of the non-trial. It's more a symptom of Dipshitforlips forgetting yet again that he is the one who brought this action, despite acting like he's the poor put-upon underdog defendant with all the cards stacked against him.

 

[Harvey Danger]

i cannot understand how Greer doesn't understand the relevance of Amazon's information in a COPYRIGHT case.

I imagine that’s why Hardin declined to explain. The relevance is self-evident and he neither works for Greer or for free. It’s not his job to educate you, Greer.

Remember that it's GreeePT writing the filings now. Russ isn't looking to have Amazon explained to him, he's looking for an already-articulated summary he can ask his AI to argue against. Greer is so incredibly, fundamentally lazy he doesn't want to do the minimal work to summarize it himself. And Hardin is wisely refusing to write the prompts for him.

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

Remember that it's GreeePT writing the filings now. Russ isn't looking to have Amazon explained to him, he's looking for an already-articulated summary he can ask his AI to argue against. Greer is so incredibly, fundamentally lazy he doesn't want to do the minimal work to summarize it himself. And Hardin is wisely refusing to write the prompts for him.

He doesn’t have to though, ChatGPT immediately gets it. This is what it told me when I fed it in earlier:

1. Amazon Corporate Witness

Hardin discloses:

Name: Unknown Custodian of Records for Amazon, Inc.

Address: c/o Amazon, Inc., 440 Terry Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109

Phone: (206) 266-1000

Scope of knowledge (paraphrased from the email):

• Records concerning your book Why I Sued Taylor Swift and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious, and Crazy, including:
  • “Free look” / preview on Amazon
  • Kindle edition
  • Sales figures
  • Customer feedback and reviews
  • Revenue

He sends this as “another witness disclosure” on Dec. 30, 2025, and you reply:


“Please explain the relevance.”


Then later:

“I decline your meet and confer.”

So that’s one clean Rule 26 disclosure: an Amazon records custodian about sales/usage of your book.

Neutral-lawyer read:

This is classic damages/fair-use discovery. A judge is going to see this as plainly relevant:

• To damages (how many copies sold, revenue, etc.).
• To fair use / market effect (has your own publication + free preview already saturated the market, how widely is the book available, what’s the real economic value)

It’s not harassment; it’s exactly the kind of corporate witness courts expect in a copyright case involving a book.

(Note it thinks I’m Greer. It assumed that at some point and I never corrected it because it is helpful to me if it develops a pro-Greer bias. I’m looking for a second opinion to push back at potential thread groupthink. Nevertheless, it is a never ending parade of saying Hardin is steamrolling him.)

 

[John Andrews Stan]

I love Russ' counter-offensive to Hardin's refusal to do his job for him: "oh yeah, well then I decline the meeting you offered that I'm supposed to have (in accordance with the rules)! So THERE!"

Brilliant.

Hardin sets the traps. Russ face-plants into them.

 

[Nolle Prosequi]

maybe he's just telling this to greer to make him mad lol
"i am considering filing a motion..." is very non-commital language

That’s not necessarily non-committal. When filing a Motion to make a basic thing happen, e.g., Motion to Continue, Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion to Amend Charging Document, etc., it helps to note the opposing side’s stance in such a Motion somewhere in your list of causes, e.g., “That Counsel for the Defendant has been contacted and is deferring to the Court as to this Motion.” The easiest and safest way to do that is to contact opposing counsel via email (to have a written record) and be like, “Hey I want to postpone this case because Officer Smith, who was the K-9 officer in this case, is on personal leave. Can I get your stance on such a Motion if I were to pre-file something with the Court?” That usually gets a better response than, “I am going to file a Motion to Postpone, fuck you.” Some courts actually require noting opposing counsel’s stance on a motion.

Not necessarily saying that’s why Hardin used the language he did, but that type of language helps when you’re trying to get a boilerplate filing done with the court.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Well.

It seems I lose my longshot bet. THANKS HARDSHIP!

Or more accurately, thanks Judge Bowtie Bennett for continuing to sleep on this case. I really hope he wakes up long enough to eagerly kick this case back to Florida so he can forget all about it in a fog of brandy and hydrocodone and get back to ignoring some other annoying part of his docket.

 

[Silver Coin Anon]

The judge would surely not transfer the case back to Florida and ignore all outstanding motions... right? What even are the legal implications of that!? Utah to Florida to Utah to Florida... A new district means all new rules so would the parties have to relitigate everything?

 

[Hunter Hearst Helmsley]

Hardin sets the traps. Russ face-plants into them.

I don’t know if trap is the right word for what is happening here. The Eagles backups just played a really bad game of football against the Washington team. Washington discovered that the Eagles backup defensive backs are terrible and would commit pass interference literally every time the ball is thrown at them. So, Washington just kept throwing at them and won the game. I think that is where we are here. Greer will commit some kind of penalty any time he has to engage with Hardin. As long as Hardin keeps throwing literally anything in Greer’s direction, Greer will self-destruct.

 

[YouTube Autist]

"Darrious Amour Lee Houston." Holy shit. Why didn't his parents just name him Nignog Prisoner#314 McCoonface?

Spoiler: Off-topic ruminations

I live in a diverse area. A few names I have encountered that have stuck with me (beyond the inevitable and unmemorable "Laquorious DeQuondre" type names) include "Heaven Scent" and "Antionette." Not "Antoinette," but "Antionette."

The audacity!
Wyświetl załącznik 8379275

Why is Hardin so obsessed with Greer? He's treating this lawsuit like it's his job or something, lol! Get a life, bro!

I hope Greer had a very merry Christmas drinking eggnog by himself because he has no friends and has alienated his family.

 

[Greasy Goblin]

Buddy Boy, are you high? If you dump this docket in the lap of another court, they will throw you in jail for trying to kill them.

And at least these judges are treating the big bad Kiwi Farms fairly, while their tard shield has been draining for 1.5 years. Is it really a good idea to try fresh judges?

Genuine question for the thread from a legal novice, but would the denial of transfer to another court for one party after a transfer for the other party succeeded for the exact same reason be additional justification for the fabled writ of mandamus? Could that be what Hardin is actually gunning for here, as a backup plan? I searched for just a bit and found a few instances where transfer denials were considered compounding with excessive court delays and used as reasoning.

 

[Your Starter for 10]

I think transferring at this point would be a big mistake. All of the sanctionable activity would be deleted and reset back to zero (I mean not legally or technically, but in reality it for sure would be - literally no judge is going to sanction a pro se poor, poor retard for activities in another court).

It MIGHT be the quickest/surest way to dismissal, as this judge is never, ever going to do that, but that's not the correct endgame/outcome at this point. Dismissal or "victory" is a given, but the only actual win is how much pain can be caused to Greer, and that's much more expedient in this court (believe it or not) , rather than starting from scratch in another/better one.

On the other hand, transferring could cause a lot of sneeding and trauma lumps, and I guess there is some comfort in that.

 

[UncleTusky]

I think transferring at this point would be a big mistake.

Especially when (nearly?) all of this case has been done remotely. Forcing Russtard to send his filings to a new email (or even snail mail if we're lucky) is a bit of humor in exchange for the giant risk that comes with a new judge. Even a pro-speech judge is going to need some time to understand how malicious and inept the plaintiff in this case is.

Which is a shame because the thought of Rusty being forced to somehow travel to Ohio or Florida for a nothing hearing is absolutely delightful.

 

[Harvey Danger]

So ECF 430-2 answers my question from Dec 22, wondering what Baylocq documents Hardin could have been expecting during a discovery stay, and how they would be required to refute anything currently before the court. Turns out Greer had said they were "relevant" to the failed PPO, not to this (copyright!) suit.




I'm not sure about Hardin's rationale for Baylocq as a witness here. Hardin claims he is needed because of Greer's "continued refusal to provide the documents relating to Roger Baylocq", but those documents weren't under discussion in this suit, nor were they part of a discovery request. Obviously he's supposed to disclose anyone with potential information, but this sounds like it's info to refute claims made in a separate (denied) action.

The Scope of Knowledge for Baylocq does include both the content of those documents before the Las Vegas court, as well as the more relevant topics of Greer's finances. Hardin's paragraph 4 in ECF 430 is the main argument to tie Baylocq to the case, but in it he claims "Mr. Greer himself injected Mr. Baylocq into this case" while talking about the LV PPO. The sole link is Hardin's credible accusation that "Mr. Greer instituted [the PPO] for the express purpose of end-running this Court’s management of its own docket". That gets a bit buried in the main connection to the PPO attempt.

Hardin is technically correct here (the best kind of correct), but of the 3 disclosed witnesses this seems like the biggest stretch for relevance. We understand the main point will be Greer's finances and IFP fraud, as outlined in 430 paragraph 3. But if the judges aren't eager to jump into that mess right now, then they have an excuse to overlook Baylocq's relevance and pull a stupid "both sides bad" wrist slapping.

 

[filthypenguin]

I'm not sure about Hardin's rationale for Baylocq as a witness here. Hardin claims he is needed because of Greer's "continued refusal to provide the documents relating to Roger Baylocq", but those documents weren't under discussion in this suit, nor were they part of a discovery request. Obviously he's supposed to disclose anyone with potential information, but this sounds like it's info to refute claims made in a separate (denied) action.

I think the line of reasoning is that Greer claims Baylocq has information about the attempted Hotel purchase in the other lawsuit. He just as easily could have said it on Facebook or whatever, but being in a filing means that it's under penalty of perjury (in theory, Greer can't backpedal it). If what Greer said was true, then that information is potentially relevant to this case, which means he has to disclose Baylocq as a possible witness. He may not be planning on using him, but he still has to disclose the possibility just in case the other witnesses go missing or something. If Greer had sent Hardin the information, Hardin could guarantee he never needs to call Baylocq as a witness because Baylocq wouldn't have any additional relevant information beyond what he already had from Greer.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

That’s not necessarily non-committal. When filing a Motion to make a basic thing happen, e.g., Motion to Continue, Motion to Transfer Venue, Motion to Amend Charging Document, etc., it helps to note the opposing side’s stance in such a Motion somewhere in your list of causes, e.g., “That Counsel for the Defendant has been contacted and is deferring to the Court as to this Motion.” The easiest and safest way to do that is to contact opposing counsel via email (to have a written record) and be like, “Hey I want to postpone this case because Officer Smith, who was the K-9 officer in this case, is on personal leave. Can I get your stance on such a Motion if I were to pre-file something with the Court?” That usually gets a better response than, “I am going to file a Motion to Postpone, fuck you.” Some courts actually require noting opposing counsel’s stance on a motion.

Not necessarily saying that’s why Hardin used the language he did, but that type of language helps when you’re trying to get a boilerplate filing done with the court.

people (including russ here) vastly OVERESTIMATE the adversarial aspects of court, especially in civil cases.

First, realize that unless you're flying in muckymucks from across the country, your lawyer, your judge, and your opponent's lawyer all know each other, probably better than you know them. They're not going to start knife fighting over your stupid shit.

And much of the whole point is to get both sides to say "here's what we agree happened, here's what we disagree on, and here's what we want the court/jury/judge to rule on". Lawyers are exceptionally good at working this out with each other so they can come to the judge "ready to go" - so many motions, even if made by "one side" are often talked about beforehand, especially for paperwork shit.

Most people think it's phoenix wright-style shit, but Russ apparently thinks that it's something else entirely, legally mandated explain sessions where nobody can interrupt or defend themselves (which is why it is always so fucking funny when he finally gets a hearing, even in Winnemucca, mack, he turns into an obsquetious little slimeball).

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

Especially when (nearly?) all of this case has been done remotely. Forcing Russtard to send his filings to a new email (or even snail mail if we're lucky) is a bit of humor in exchange for the giant risk that comes with a new judge. Even a pro-speech judge is going to need some time to understand how malicious and inept the plaintiff in this case is.

Which is a shame because the thought of Rusty being forced to somehow travel to Ohio or Florida for a nothing hearing is absolutely delightful.

I've said before that it looks like everyone is playing a game of appearing to be highly motivated to get to trial while avoiding the reality of such a thing (for different reasons)- and any talk of another venue swap would fall into that model, without getting any more specific for fear of it getting stuck into some AI prompt.

But while Russ misses deadlines, files nonsense and gets hit with various penalties, the defense can play games entirely within the rules, inflicting paper cut after paper cut. It has plausible legal arguments, regardless of whether the court agrees with them, and each one invites another absurd response from Russ. Even if his antics don't get the case dismissed, time ticks down time before he finally gets shanked by some hooker he tried to woo.