Greer Was Bluffing With his Lawsuit Against Mirlis & Hack

 

simpsongreerclown

The recent motion filed by the attorney for Avi Hack states the following:  “Hack’s deposition was started with the announcement that he was going to be served with a writ, summons, and complaint at some point during the deposition.  This in fact took place about 90 minutes into the deposition.  Marshal Willie Davis, Jr. served Aviad Hack and Attorney Ponvert (Mirlis’ attorney).”

In the middle of Hack’s deposition Marshal Davis served Hack and Ponvert with a lawsuit in which Greer claimed he was being extorted by Hack and Mirlis.  Greer claimed in this lawsuit that Hack and Mirlis were trying to force Greer to turn over his non-profit yeshiva to Hack.  If Mirlis was trying to shake Greer down why would Mirlis want Greer to turn over the yeshiva to Avi Hack?

If Mirlis and Hack were extorting Greer I would think they would want more than just a non-profit.  Extortionists want cold hard cash.  Extortionists don’t blackmail people in order to take over a run down old building on Elm Street that needs a lot of work.

Greer’s attorney figured that he could rattle Avi Hack just before his deposition with this extortion lawsuit.  Most extortionists use threats of violence to get what they want.  Others threaten to rat you out to the police.

Threatening a litigious madman like Greer with a civil child molestation lawsuit isn’t extortion.  In fact, this molestation lawsuit feeds into Greer’s already inflated ego.  Greer likes a good fight.  The lawsuit is just one more way for Greer to vent his rage and inflict harm on others. Greer can now boast that despite the molestation lawsuit he is still running the show.  Greer is still on top.  Nobody is going to take him down.  Greer can point to his loyal sycophants Quick Draw McGraw, Mr. Robot, Jerry Paley, Lou Goldberg, Arnie Rogoff and Mark Roffman, as evidence that he is still relevant.

Greer figured that Avi Hack would not testify against Greer if Avi was served with an extortion lawsuit just before the deposition.  Greer figured wrong.  The fact that Greer’s attorney is playing along with this sadistic madman is sickening.  Most lawyers would dump Greer as a client rather than follow the orders of a mad dictator.  Such lawyers run the risk of losing all credibility in court and violating the code of ethics. This may surprise most readers, but there exists a code of ethics for lawyers.

The extortion lawsuit Greer served on Hack and Mirlis has a return date of August 30, 2016 printed at the top.  To start a lawsuit in Connecticut you must first have a state marshal serve the defendant with the paperwork.  Then you file the paperwork in court.  Greer had Hack and Mirlis served with the lawsuit at the deposition.  But Greer never followed through and filed the paperwork with the Superior Court.  I checked the Connecticut Judicial website and there is no case pending against Hack and Mirlis.  Greer had until the end of August to file this lawsuit.  Greer was bluffing with his lawsuit.  The old goat was full of hot air.

The failure of Greer to file his lawsuit proves that the only reason Greer served Hack with the lawsuit was in order to intimidate Hack and  inflict pain upon Hack.  This is the same man who raped Hack when Hack was a child.  Has this sadistic man not caused enough pain and suffering to Avi Hack and his family?

What kind of a lawyer assists Greer in inflicting pain on others?   Greer’s lawyer could just as easily served Avi Hack in Rhode Island with the lawsuit.  Greer’s lawyer could have refused to serve the lawsuit, as Greer never intended to have it filed in the courthouse.

What kind of a lawyer asks Avi Hack questions that have nothing to do with the lawsuit?  In Hack’s deposition he was asked about the colleges attended by his parents and their area of study.  Greer has known the Hack family for 30 years.  Greer knows exactly which colleges Hack’s parents attended.  And what do these colleges have to do with the lawsuit?

Rule 4.4. of the Connecticut Canon of Ethics for Attorneys 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…”  In this case Avi Hack was a third person.  Avi Hack is not a litigant in the Greer case.  When Attorney Ward served Avi Hack with the Greer lawsuit that was never filed in court, Ward clearly used “means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”

 

 

1 thought on “Greer Was Bluffing With his Lawsuit Against Mirlis & Hack”

  1. I’m confused by Rogoff. If there was even a shred of a remote possibility that Greer had done something to someone in his family, he would burn the place down and ask questions after. And here is a pretty credible story that Greer is a sexual predator and he supports his minyan and exposes his family to that. No words.

Leave a Reply