Two months ago the attorney for Plaintiff Mirlis mailed Greer a written list of questions. Greer was supposed to answer these questions as part of the case. Greer refused to answer any of the questions. The lawyer for Mirlis was forced to file a motion requesting a court order to compel Greer to answer the questions.
The attorney for Mirlis asked Greer such questions as, “identify everyone that you had sexual contact (including fondling, oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, and penetration of any kind) who was under the age of 18, and identify every location in which you had sexual contact.”
Greer’s attorney claimed that Greer was going to hide behind the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Greer said he was not going answer some of the questions. For some reason Greer does not want to answer the question about whether he had sexual contact with persons under the age of 18. I wonder why…
The attorney for Mirlis also asked Greer questions about a bogus lawsuit Greer had served on Avi Hack during Hack’s deposition. Greer wanted to rattle Avi before his deposition, so he had a marshal serve Avi with a bogus lawsuit that was never filed in court. The lawsuit claimed that Avi and Mirlis tried to extort Greer. Mirlis’ attorney is seeking paperwork and documents related to this sham lawsuit.
Greer’s attorney cannot commence a lawsuit in bad faith, or just for the purpose of harassing a witness. According to Rule 3.1 of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Responsibility, an attorney cannot bring or “defend a proceeding, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.” Rule 4.4. provides the following: “(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person…”
A complete copy of Greer’s bogus shake down lawsuit is not publicly available. But the attorney for Mirlis referred to some of the allegations in his motion. Questions 6 and 7 reveal that at some point before the Mirlis lawsuit, paperwork was exchanged between Greer’s attorney and Avi Hack, Dov Greer and Ezi Greer. Whatever is contained in this paperwork is evidence of the attempted shake down. By including his sons with Avi Hack, Greer has implicated them in his claim of extortion. What kind of a father accuses his own sons of extortion? The old goat has clearly lost his mind. The judge should order a psychological evaluation of the old goat.
Greer’s sons left the compound a long time ago and have nothing to do with the old goat. Recently a few locals have attempted to contact Ezi and Dov Greer with some questions related to the eruv in New Haven, ie., the strings placed on telephone poles creating a boundary for Orthodox Jews to push their baby strollers and carry things on the Sabbath. I heard that Greer’s sons told the locals that they no longer live in New Haven, they have nothing to do with the old goat, they don’t have the old goat’s phone number, and to put them on the do not call list.
It’s time for a name change for The Sons of Greer. Why be burdened with the Greer name. Go back to the original family name. Greerly? Greersky? Greerburger?