Cultcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

[Phil Ken Sebben]

There's gonna be head tightening tonight!

Oh that was glorious.

Seethe Pipsqueak SEETHE!

And Judge Campbell? Your Kiwi-shekels have been transferred to your account as promised.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

I hope that Skordas wrangles some fees just because of how much he was seething over Skordas forcing the issue the first time when he ignored the debt for over a year. Having to pay for someone else's defense against him, twice, even a token amount will just kill him.

I think trying to fund the attempt here might work, just to cover whatever legal fees may accrue in the case that they can't recover it from Russ. I'd pay a shiny nickel to see Russ have a nice fat judgement on him.

 

[kcbbq]

I think trying to fund the attempt here might work, just to cover whatever legal fees may accrue in the case that they can't recover it from Russ. I'd pay a shiny nickel to see Russ have a nice fat judgement on him.

The 87 occurrences of "with prejudice" are going to sting some, but, really, go for the gold.

 

[AnOminous]

Hmm. Is it just some "his docket is too full / this judge needs to take leave so it gets pushed up the chain" thing? Because it's gone up to a district court.

That could have no significance at all or a lot. I am not a smart law kiwi nor a study paralegal.

The judge already withdrew the reference for dispositive motions. She has to have personally done this. The hammer is about to come down.

 

[Sona]

How do you read someones (oblivious) confession to harassing someone and still sympathize with their plight lmao

 

[lamp shade]

I’m going to guess that over time he’s going to spin it that the judge was afraid of either Kiwi Farms or Skordas. He’s going to tard rage for a while but then he will hyper focus on that last paragraph and claim the judge totally agreed with him but had to dismiss it for reasons.

In reality, it read to me like she was covering her ass. People don’t want to come across as supporting the farms so she threw that in there to say we are bad but not illegally bad.

 

[AnOminous]

I’m not sure how sympathetic the Judge will be to a motion for costs. It may depend on how much Russ’s Supplemental Bullshit pissed her off. I don’t think she viewed his initial complaints to be made in bad faith. Just ignorant stupidity.

Costs are automatic. It's fees that are the question. Costs will probably be minimal. Maybe a couple hundred bucks.

I hope (but don't expect) that Skordas served a Rule 11 notice seeking sanctions after the first "Supplemental Brief". He's had a light touch throughout this case and kept fees and costs down, relying on Russ to fuck himself up.

I don't believe he did, but that wouldn't have been filed with the court, so possibly he did. There's also 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which would seem to apply, at the very least, to the first and second supplemental brief, and I don't believe there would be a notice requirement for that, as there would not have been time to send it before the hammer came down in any event.

(I should note the Tenth Circuit has said 1927 applies to attorneys only and can't be applied to their clients, but as recently as this year noted that as to pro se litigants, it has "not squarely decided that question." Roberts v. Generation Next, No. 20-2068 (10th Cir. 2021) (declining to impose 1927 sanctions against pro se plaintiff)).

Skordas did raise the issue in his response to the first supplemental brief.

I'm not sure Skordas would even have spent time on the second one, and if so no harm, no foul, but the first probably generated some billables. Definitely if he even had to crack a book over the second one, it might be worth it.

That's pretty speculative at this point.

That's a bit different. He has to file a motion under rule 54 for attorney's fees. He was asking fees for the one frivolous filing, as opposed to the entire case.

Good point. 1927 also covers similar issues, and while it is about counsel liability, Russ is acting both as counsel and client. 54 might be more apposite, though, and similarly, would not have a notice requirement. To an extent, they cover similar ground, and 54 even cites 1927.

That mention of plights and Josh being protected by section 230 is the loudest dog whistle I ever heard.

No, 230 is just the law that unambiguously applies. Any judge would have made that ruling, in any court in the land. The "plight" thing raises an eyebrow, but I wouldn't make any conclusions from it.

 

[WhaleOilBeefHooked]

I had a roomie who was convinced the hot redhead at the strip club loved him. I mean, she had him wrapped around her little finger. He'd come running the instant she texted, he gave her at least 15K over the course of six months. They never even kissed, let alone fucked. He finally gave up on her when he gave her $2000 and she used it to go to Vegas and marry her actual bf. He was crushed, but refused to acknowledge he'd been used. He convinced himself her bf tricked her into marrying him and she'd soon leave her husband and come be with him. Needless to say, this didn't happen. At least he stopped giving her money.

Reminds me of that reddit story about the guy who spent his grandmother's inheritance on twitch thots.

Bold, fearless prediction: Russhole will lodge an appeal just prior to the 30 day window closing, and it'll be his most hysterical filing yet. I'd be shocked if it came in at under 20 pages; at least 10 of which being phone screenshots marked as EXHIBTS (said EXHIBTS will be on pages 6 through 6).

I'm honestly not sure if Russell even knows what an appeal is, I don't think we've ever heard him post about appealing any of his lawsuits before.

 

[️ronic]

I'm honestly not sure if Russell even knows what an appeal is, I don't think we've ever heard him post about appealing any of his lawsuits before.

I believe he bitched on Facebook about appealing after the Ariana trial. He never went through with it, though.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm curious, could any US legal nerds give me an idea if I'd have a case against him for claiming that I'm responsible for mass shootings and suicides on his social media?

I wouldn't ever offer legal advice on it other than it would seem to be a waste of money to file a lawsuit internationally over some slurping bamboon who has very little money. However, defamation law in the UK is much more vicious than in the U.S., although again, it would be virtually futile to attempt such a judgment in the U.S. because of the SPEECH Act, a law that prohibits enforcement of foreign libel judgments unless they would have flown under the First Amendment, a law almost directly aimed at UK libel judgments.

What will make it extra entertaining is that the Notice of Appeal (the first appeal doc) should be extremely boring--basically, "Please take notice that Plaintiff hereby appeals the decision of the District Court." Of course, that won't be enough for the Plightmaster. He'll have to add a whole bunch of other bullshit.

So long as he includes the proper magic words, surplusage won't stop it from being effective, but it will advertise him up front as a vexatious pro se litigant. The clerk will probably sigh and mutter to himself "this oughtta be entertaining."

 

[EyesFullOfSperg]

Edit: lolView attachment 2557880

You KNOW that this is all Russ is going to remember from this

 

[The Un-Clit]

I feel hate for him. He wished death on Taylor's mom, thought he had it worse in life than the little girl who was burned, was jealous of the young girl who actually passed away in the bombing near Ariana's concert because her picture was "better," etc. (We all know the rest.)

Yes, his legal filings are hilarious and so are the comments he leaves on girls' IGs.

But he is a despicable human being who I, personally, think can both be hated and laughed at simultaneously.

I think everyone has the occasional dark, unworthy thought. Russhole's problem is #1 he has them all the time, #2 he's so fucking stupid he thinks they are great thoughts and so fucking autistic that he blasts them out on social media where the only people eager to receive them are Kiwis, Redditors, 4channers and unafilliated trolls.

Also so retarded and a bad judge of his own skills due to crippling Dunning-Krueger that he tries to act on these completely bonkers plans that anyone else can see has no chance in hell and we watch the failtrain crash coming a mile away, and we are endlessly entertained by his pitiful mindset and disgusting nature but I can't really hate him.

I can be disgusted by him, repelled by him, want nothing but to laugh at him, but he's too pitiful to hate. That's reserved for the ones that really do harm by means direct like Nick Bate or more indirect like Jonny Yaniv. Maybe some day Russ will cross the line, but right now it's contempt and schadenfreude that I feel for Russhole more then anything else.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Is this the first time "ebin" has been entered into a court record?

God bless all you ebin weens.

 

[Heckler1]

I think everyone has the occasional dark, unworthy thought. Russhole's problem is #1 he has them all the time, #2 he's so fucking stupid he thinks they are great thoughts and so fucking autistic that he blasts them out on social media where the only people eager to receive them are Kiwis, Redditors, 4channers and unafilliated trolls.

I think you have a very fair and based view here. In fact, I'd say you could extrapolate it to most people with threads. They would all be better off if they would stop screaming their unfiltered thoughts into the void of the internet. The irony of course, is once they have the attention they sought, instead of worshipping them as gods, it is a bunch of people chuckling at their antics.

 

[ConSluttant]

HAH!

Thankfully all claims were denied with prejudice, because I can see Russhole jumping on the brief statement of sympathy for Russ's trauma lumpy head and trying to refile because 'the judge said I had cause since she sympathized with me!' or something similar, but denial with prejudice should let any subsequent attempts get stomped by null without even involving Based Skordas.

This is the first time I've seen a judge deny a first time lawsuit like this with prejudice on everything. Usually it's without prejudice to allow them to possibly go back and fix their deficiencies and actually show proof instead of all the handwaving and wishful thinking that are the hallmark of lolcow filings. So this is a refreshing sight for the Utah judge to just say "Nah fam, you dun fucked this up so bad you just ain't EVER going to make this work. Now go fuck off you twit."

Either the judge is based or that dollar we venmoed did the trick!

 

[AngryTreeRat]

This was my favourite bit.

The Judge is like "Guys, you ain't even going to point out that a website can't be sued? Really? Like that's a really easy one. Come on guys." I think Skordas response would be something like "I knew I could stomp him, again, without it."

 

[Laquisha Guntermensch]

Maybe some day Russ will cross the line, but right now it's contempt and schadenfreude that I feel for Russhole more then anything else.

You should feel deep burning shame and the walls of a charade collapsing upon you if you want to empathize with that wannabe whore fucker. He is not too pitiful to hate, quite the opposite: His hatred is pitiful.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Oh that was glorious.

Seethe Pipsqueak SEETHE!

And Judge Campbell? Your Kiwi-shekels have been transferred to your account as promised.

The Cult of the Kiwi Strikes Again!

 

[Kosher Salt]

"Perplexingly, the Defendants do not raise the issue that Kiwi Farms, as a website, is not a legal entity capable of being sued."

I mentioned that way back a few minutes after I stumbled across the lawsuit and brought it to the Farms' attention. How do you sue a website?? He needed to name the "corporate" entity behind the website. I am glad that was pointed out as I thought I was going nuts that they were entertaining his improper naming of a defendant and didn't turf at least the action against KF immediately. At least that has now been addressed.

This was my favourite bit.
View attachment 2558970
The Judge is like "Guys, you ain't even going to point out that a website can't be sued? Really? Like that's a really easy one. Come on guys." I think Skordas response would be something like "I knew I could stomp him, again, without it."

The problem with raising that particular issue is that it's easily remediable. Null's paying for a lawyer's time and had to decide which issues are going to give the most bang for his buck. If they argue this, and win on it, Russ could simply cure the defect by simply filing an amended complaint and naming a proper defendant, and then they're right back at square one.

Hell, Russ never even attempted to serve Kiwi Farms, but that issue wasn't raised either. Even in the best case scenario where Kiwi Farms gets dismissed from the complaint, Null was still named personally. And despite the fact that Russ was trying to make Null responsible for everything on Kiwi Farms, he didn't include a conspiracy claim. If he had included conspiracy, getting Kiwi Farms dismissed from the suit might've been a strategy to defeat the conspiracy charge, since it requires multiple parties conspiring together - if Kiwi Farms was dismissed as an improper defendant, any conspiracy charge falls apart. But even then you're only defeating the conspiracy charge; it might be more strategic to go for the jugular and try to get the whole case dismissed.

Everything was dismissed with prejudice

Everything was dismissed with prejudice, including the copyright infringement. The copyright infringement was almost strong enough to withstand a summary dismissal. Everything else was raving bullshit amounting to “people were mean to me on the internet”. And note by “strong enough to survive dismissal” I don’t mean the copyright issue would have won at trial. Just that there was almost an actual legal question or argument there. At this stage the Judge looks at it as if assuming everything Russel claims is true, is there an actual legal case or claims here? The answer is No on all claims.

As I alluded to just over 12 hours ago right before these rulings dropped, Russ really fucked himself by filing all of that frivolous shit. Copyright was by far his strongest legal claim (and I'm not even saying it was very good), but it was way, way low down on the list of his plights, so he fought all the wrong battles and argued the wrong stuff. He successfully managed to make himself look like such a frivolous lunatic that his copyright claims didn't even get much consideration.

I don't know how jurisdiction would work out but, generally in the US, allegations of criminal activity or 'moral turpitude' (as well as 'loathsome disease') fall under a special umbrella- per se defamation- and do not require the plaintiff to prove harm for a judgement.

That's true for a prima facie pleading, but eventually you're going to have to show some actual damages for the court to be able to make you whole. The idea behind it is that the damages are so obvious as to not need to be shown at the initial pleading stage of the lawsuit, but if you get to trial and can't actually show any damages, the court's not necessarily going to just hand you a thick wad of money to remedy the offense to your character.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

Rereading the transcript from the 2017 case gave me a lightbulb moment.

Spoiler: Excerpts from judge's statements

Mr. Greer, I’d like to address something with you. I’ve read through your documentation. I’ve gone through the defendants’ documents. I’ve also been made aware of certain other comments, social media comments, other things of that nature directed at various individuals. I’m going to give you an opportunity to explain some of those comments made very recently to me before I take any action on those. This isn’t about the case, this isn’t about a concert, this isn’t about songs, this isn’t about anything. This is about social media content, threats, electronic communications harassment, other types of improper, inappropriate, quite illegal activity, and prior to me making commentary or acting on that, I’d like to hear what you may have to say in defense of some of the things that I have seen, some of the things I have read.
...
Do you understand that when a stream of discussions are occurring regarding a problem with another individual that may make it to a court setting with judges and bailiffs and clerks and members of society, that when someone says something to the effect that “I promise you there will be blood” that that might be taken more seriously than the title of a movie? Might you understand that?
...
Understand, that is improper, that is illegal. If anything, it’s electronic communications harassment. It might be misdemeanor stalking, OK? That’s when people get arrested in court for making those kind of comments. You understand that?
...
So you might want to watch… Facebook might be fun, it might be sarcastic, hee hee... We take this stuff seriously. When people bring this stuff to our attention, and we have to have certain people here, that’s something you should take very seriously, or you might be spending the rest of the weekend in a cement room.

Being a typical narc, Russ squirreled this information away in his arsenal. I think he honestly expected the judge in this case to beat down Null with the same logic. All he had to do was bring it to the court's attention.

Cue the increasingly erratic supplemental memorandum briefs. "Look what they're saying, judge! I have screenshots!"

He doesn't see the difference between a named party in a court case posting viable threats and hecklers from the peanut gallery throwing rotten fruit at him.

Oh, he 100% absolutely does this. Like, waaaay back in the first Skordas response, Skordas said with regards to the copyright infringement, and in the context of talking about the statute of limitations, "the damage was done" and removing the offending material would serve no purpose. Russ seized on this turn of phrase and filed the Byuu brief with the express intention of showing that harm was still on-going. The fact that the alleged harm had nothing to do with what Skordas was talking about, and wasn't relevant to that part of Russ's claim, didn't matter. I could easily point out a half-dozen other examples of him skimming (or just plain not understanding) a legal document, seizing on a keyword or two, and fixating obsessively on the thing he thinks he understands.

Russ is stupid.

He's only aware of the concept of electronics communications harassment because that's what he was charged with. He only knows that stalking victims are supposed to say they felt in fear for their lives because that's what Erika says. He needs to find a way to validate his feelings, and twisting the law or mimicking actual victims is how he does it. It doesn't ever occur to him that he might be wrong or that someone else might suffer in a way he doesn't. It's that same autistic magic-word code-breaking that has been mentioned in relation to PUAs, etc., all over the place all the time.

He has no concept of mind, not even his own. He's just an entity that's always right and any discomfort he feels is someone else's fault, and they need to be punished for it.