Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Greer v. Moon, No. 20-cv-00647 (D. Utah Sep. 16, 2020)
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
Greer v. Moon
2:20-cv-00647— District Court, D. Utah
Docket No.
2:20-cv-00647
Court
District Court, D. Utah
Filed
15 de Sep, 2020
Terminated
22 de Abr, 2024
Nature of Suit
820 Copyright
Cause
17:0501 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
None
Last Filing
6 de Ago, 2024
Parties (4)
Parties
Lolcow, LLC, Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, Russell G. Greer
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 127)
#
Date
Description
Filing
—
6 de Ago, 2024
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett. (kpf)
113
15 de Mayo, 2024
ORDER of USCA Supreme Court Circuit as to 45 Notice of Appeal, filed by Russell G. Greer. Supreme Court order dated 05/13/2024 denying certiorari. (jrj) (Entered: 05/16/2024)
112
28 de Abr, 2024
NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL that case has been transferred to Northern District of Floridia via electronic given case number 3:24-cv-00122-MCR-ZCB. (nl) (Entered: 04/29/2024)
111
25 de Abr, 2024
Report on the Final Decision of an action mailed to the Register of Copyrights Office. (kpf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/26/2024: # 1 Copy Right Form) (kpf). (Entered: 04/26/2024)
NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL that case has been transferred to Northern District of Florida. (kpf) (Entered: 04/26/2024)
GREER v. MOON
3:24-cv-00122— District Court, N.D. Florida
Docket No.
3:24-cv-00122
Court
District Court, N.D. Florida
Filed
19 de Mar, 2024
Terminated
10 de Jun, 2024
Nature of Suit
820 Copyright
Cause
17:501 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
None
Last Filing
16 de Oct, 2024
Parties (4)
Parties
LOLCOW LLC, RUSSELL G GREER, KIWI FARMS, JOSHUA MOON
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 155)
#
Date
Description
Filing
—
16 de Oct, 2024
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE ZACHARY C BOLITHO notified that action is needed Re: 132 Mail Returned. (mah)
132
15 de Oct, 2024
Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Russell G. Greer re: 128 ORDER. Order mailed to 1155 S. Twain Avenue, Suite 108420, Las Vegas, NV 89169. (Attachment: #1 Notice of Returned Mail). (mah) (Entered: 10/17/2024)
AO 121 Copyright Case Notification of order entered. Copy sent to the Register of Copyrights. U.S. Copyright Office, 101 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000. (adf) (Entered: 07/11/2024)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT re 129 Case Transferred Out to Another District. Case transferred from Florida Northern has been opened in District of Utah as case 2:24cv00421, filed 06/11/2024. (jfj) (Entered: 06/13/2024)
Interdistrict Transfer to the District of Utah. (jfj) (Entered: 06/11/2024)
Greer v. Moon
2:24-cv-00421— District Court, D. Utah
Docket No.
2:24-cv-00421
Court
District Court, D. Utah
Filed
10 de Jun, 2024
Nature of Suit
820 Copyright
Cause
17:0501 Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
Federal Question
Jury Demand
Plaintiff
Last Filing
21 de Jun, 2026
Parties (4)
Parties
Lolcow LLC, Kiwi Farms, Joshua Moon, Russell G. Greer
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 525)
#
Date
Description
Filing
486
21 de Jun, 2026
Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re [480] Defendant's MOTION to Unseal Document [1] filed by Russell G. Greer and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon, Counter Claimants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A (publicly-filed Tennessee in forma pauperis application), (2) Exhibit B (publicly-filed Tennessee order denying in forma pauperis status), (3) Exhibit C (publicly-filed Nevada in forma pauperis applications))(Hardin, Matthew)
Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re [478] Defendant's MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support as to both claims and counterclaims filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon, Counter Claimants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Hardin, Matthew)
Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re [477] Defendant's MOTION to Amend Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Motion to Reconsider)Defendant's MOTION to Vacate [449] Modification of Docket, [453] Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Mo filed by Defendants Lolcow LLC, Joshua Moon. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A (Mr. Greer did not timely file because he "fell asleep"))(Hardin, Matthew)
RESPONSE to Motion re [477] Defendant's MOTION to Amend Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Motion to Reconsider)Defendant's MOTION to Vacate [449] Modification of Docket, [453] Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous, Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Mo filed by Plaintiff Russell G. Greer. (jrj)
RESPONSE to Motion re [480] Defendant's MOTION to Unseal Document [1] filed by Russell G. Greer and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff Russell G. Greer. (jrj)
Greer v. Moon
21-4128— Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Docket No.
21-4128
Court
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Filed
26 de Oct, 2021
Terminated
15 de Oct, 2023
Nature of Suit
3820 Copyright
Last Filing
4 de Jun, 2026
Recent Filings
#
Date
Description
Filing
10010756599
19 de Oct, 2022
[10949330] Appellant's reply brief filed by Russell G. Greer. Served on 10/20/2022. Manner of Service: email. Word/page count: 6487. This pleading complies with all required privacy and virus certifications: Yes. [21-4128] [Entered: 10/21/2022 07:58 AM]
Ver archivo adjunto 9179287
This is a shot across the bow from Hardin if ever there was one. He is entirely correct but it is still wild as hell to actually come out and say it. I'm not sure I entirely understand why Hardin is being this direct.
Greer: Ah yes, I'm gonna invoke the DMCA notice and takedown framework that's applicable to service providers
Also Greer: Kiwi Farms is not a service provider, so Cox doesn't matter
It is very unjust, bad faith, and frivolous to cite Greer's own words back at him. Doesn't Hardin know pro se arguments are supposed to be construed so liberally the opposing side can't argue them at all?
Reminds me of the Virginia Supreme Court ruling killing their redistricting. The Dem AG argued that it would be patently unfair and improper for the state Supreme Court to rule on the legality of the redistricting before the public cast their votes. Then after the court struck down the redistricting and nullified the results of the referendum, he argued that it was patently unfair and improper because it silenced the voices of Virginians.
Just like with Greee, the only correct principle is letting them win every time.
I don't think it's possible for the Bowtie Morons to not concede that Hardin is completely correct in ECF 485 without actually reaching the threshold for removal from the bench.
Ver archivo adjunto 9179287
This is a shot across the bow from Hardin if ever there was one. He is entirely correct but it is still wild as hell to actually come out and say it. I'm not sure I entirely understand why Hardin is being this direct.
I don't think it's possible for the Bowtie Morons to not concede that Hardin is completely correct in ECF 485 without actually reaching the threshold for removal from the bench.
I'm assuming they will just ignore it, find something minor of Hardin's to deny in a month (so it doesn't generate more on the docket), and hope the 10th circuit resolves it at some point in the future.
Their idea of 'judicial economy' seems to only factor in their own time. Everyone else can get fucked.
They check your temple recommend before entering the temple to make sure you're authorized to enter. They do not check your ID or your temple recommend just to enter the church (ward house), and pretty much everyone is welcome to come into a church unless they do something to lose that welcome.
That's sort of what I said. He wasn't allowed into the temple but he would have been allowed to attend anything non-temple, if he hadn't thrown a temper tantrum about it being a "no plights zone." I appreciate the clarification though.
Also, when did Null say "no one accidentally give Russel money". You can't just put quotation marks on something and say that they are the defendants words. That would be a good opportunity to either embed a screenshot, or at the very least a footer citation. But there is neither. Ugh, just reading this drivel is making MATI.
Lawyers: am I crazy for thinking this false quotation (ECF 481 at 2) is sanctionable under Rule 11? Or does seeking sanctions for falsehoods like this risk pissing off the judges in the same way seeking a Writ of Mandamus does, so noone (who's not pro se) actually does it except for something more consequential?
If it is sanctionable, in another filing Hardin had to point out that Russ hadn't complied with the 21-day grace period afforded by Rule 11(c)(2), so I wonder if he'll now show him how that actually works? I can't imagine Greer just going "whoops, my bad" and correcting the record after it's pointed out to him; instead, I imagine some sperging about how BIZARRE it is that Hardin would even bring it up and that to call attention to Greer's lies is evidence Hardin isn't acting in good faith.
Edit to add: Of note, Hardin didn't bring up this false quotation in his reply (ECF 484), so perhaps that answers the question? If a brief is stricken due to being untimely, does Rule 11 still apply to it?
I'm assuming they will just ignore it, find something minor of Hardin's to deny in a month (so it doesn't generate more on the docket), and hope the 10th circuit resolves it at some point in the future.
Their idea of 'judicial economy' seems to only factor in their own time. Everyone else can get fucked.
They would be stupid to rule on this before the 10th circuit rules on the regular lawsuit. Because if they do that means they mean risking being slapped by the 10th if the 10th decides counter to the Supreme court. Hardin knows the Judges won't do anything substantial until they feel secure in what they were going to do unless they were forced into it.
In fact I'd say the glacial movement on the regular Greer v Moon case is kind of a sign that the Judges expect this to get overturned at the 10th or at least believe it is reasonably possible. They've known about the possibility of something like this happening ever since the Supreme Court decision on Cox v Sony which means its been basically 3 months of them knowing something like this was coming.
I'd go so far to say that Hardin likely knew something this would become a problem for Greer and the DJF. Greer is going to litigate things for the counterclaim but what he says can be used against him at appeal and it the DJF has to eat it. This kind of thing is exactly what I'd expect from a former politician like Hardin. It's very clever if done intentionally.
Lawyers: am I crazy for thinking this false quotation (ECF 481 at 2) is sanctionable under Rule 11? Or does seeking sanctions for falsehoods like this risk pissing off the judges in the same way seeking a Writ of Mandamus does, so noone (who's not pro se) actually does it except for something more consequential?
If it is sanctionable, in another filing Hardin had to point out that Russ hadn't complied with the 21-day grace period afforded by Rule 11(c)(2), so I wonder if he'll now show him how that actually works? I can't imagine Greer just going "whoops, my bad" and correcting the record after it's pointed out to him; instead, I imagine some sperging about how BIZARRE it is that Hardin would even bring it up and that to call attention to Greer's lies is evidence Hardin isn't acting in good faith.
Edit to add: Of note, Hardin didn't bring up this false quotation in his reply (ECF 484), so perhaps that answers the question? If a brief is stricken due to being untimely, does Rule 11 still apply to it?
He didn't claim Null said it; he (repeatedly) claimed that nonspecific "users" said it.
Greer has been previously sanctioned in this very case for making materially false statements in the record about Hardin, but I don't think this particular quote falls under the same category. Seems like something that couldn't be addressed until he tries to introduce it as evidence at trial, at which point he would have to prove that "users" ever said such a thing and best of luck with that. I guess it could be argued that he's improperly trying to introduce facts not yet in evidence into the record, but he literally does that with every single filing in this case for years and nobody has stopped him thus far.
That's sort of what I said. He wasn't allowed into the temple but he would have been allowed to attend anything non-temple, if he hadn't thrown a temper tantrum about it being a "no plights zone." I appreciate the clarification though.
I wish Hardin had put a little more stress here on the damn "shall" provision that we've been pushing all this time, but I'm glad he at least brought it up again. These judges need reminding of that "shall" repeatedly and at high volume on every filing concerning this IFP matter. Never let that "shall" out of their sight.
