I feel like that would be hilarious for a couple reasons, one of them being the narcissistic injury it would inflict on Shitlips: the confirmation that these guys just used him for their own bullshit and didn't give a rat's ass about his copyrights.
Well, they can always check his main thread, where it appears some elevator autists have found what shithole hotel he's possibly staying in based on a six second found-footage style upload.
Either way, the DJF loses. Serves them right for picking up the monkey's paw that is Greee and using him as a vehicle to try and shut down fair use.
Can they withdraw? They have to have a good reason to withdraw and they said they'd do it for free already. Can't be a rule 1 violation.
allegedly DJF still had Greer v Moon at the top of their list of achievements and appears to be the only achievement of note so they might be compelled to defend it, but unless I have the wrong DJF they have removed the reference from their website https://www.djflawfirm.com/
A "fundamental disagreement in case strategy" is the reason used whenever public defenders submit motions to withdraw whenever they're assigned SovCit type clients who demand they make all sorts of arguments with no basis in law. If the DJF's strategy is "read the writing on the wall and roll over" and Russ's is "fight this with every ounce of blood, sweat, drool, and various other bodily fluids in my body" then they do in fact have a fundamental disagreement in case strategy that could probably get them off the case.
DJF here is the Digital Justice Foundation.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the DJF more or less brought on just for the appeal and only the appeal? Because Greer screeched at the court that the DJF were expecting him to pay if he wanted any further representation, and had abandoned him (just like his parents did, weird how that keeps happening) because he couldn't afford it.
Yes, but since Hardin is going directly back to the 10th with a motion based on the Supreme Court's decision, everyone who was involved at the end of that is still involved. He basically necro-posted the appeals docket with a big fat "@everyone I have some news to share."
Looks like @everyone joined six years ago and only used his account for a single day before abandoning it so he’s probably not too upset at being pinged.
I think MG had a momentary mistaken belief that he’d just pinged everyone with a KF account. Hence the panic attack reference.
Yeah, that's the one. I was 100% sure Null wouldn't allow such a thing to exist on the forum, but seeing the green name reminded me of all the times in the past I've thought "It's safe to post this, I'm just a normie-tier user and the admins obviously will have role-gated the everyone ping" only to learn how wrong I was an instant later.
Probably got freaked out by all the notifications.
So many times, "monkey's paw" is used as a metaphor. With Russ, it's a bit more literal.
What if they refuse to do so? Would that count as not replying, aka, lose on default?
Not really, the court would still evaluate the motion and can still deny recall. Similarly they could accept recall and still make a stupid decision without any input from plaintiff plaintiff.
The question or problem is this new action is on the docket of the prior appeal. So depending on the representation Contract they have with the drippy shit weasel, they may be stuck still representing him in this matter only. Now if they have formally parted ways over things like irreconsileable differences over matters regarding pay, they may have enough wiggle romm to withdraw. But we're talking Greer. The gift that keeps on giving. The No Good Deed Ever Goes Unpunished Client. If they had sent him some form of a formal separation of services document when all this finished uyp, and when he was trying to tie them into his AGT Lawsuit Pro Bono, they are likely clear. Maybe.
