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

If you were Taylor Swift, whom would you rather date?

  • Russell Greer

    Votes: 117 4.5%

  • Travis Kelce

    Votes: 138 5.3%

  • Null

    Votes: 1,450 55.8%

  • Kanye West

    Votes: 283 10.9%

  • Ariana Grande

    Votes: 609 23.5%
  • Total voters
    2,597
Useful_Mistake said:
I asked an AI from Artflow to create an image of Russ. Seems pretty accurate (AI may have made him look a bit prettier). Although it did delete his moebius syndrome which is pretty ableist if you ask me.
View attachment 2781807
Click to expand...
Lovechild of Steve Buscemi and the UK's own James Nesbitt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr3nt177, Hitman One, YarrBlueballs and 1 other person
AnOminous said:
It will almost certainly be granted and Skordas would be wasting his time and Null's money to oppose it. An extension either to retain counsel or for recently retained counsel to come up to speed is fairly routinely granted. The only reason I can imagine it being turned down is if they somehow already decided to dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

There was never a fair use argument in the case. He never even properly pled contributory infringement, or so found the lower court. Usually, one can't introduce new arguments on appeal, but I assume they have some inkling of an argument they should be allowed to in this case.
Click to expand...
Based on filings they've made in previous lawsuits, I'm assuming that their argument is that they can throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. In their only non-Amicus case in the second circuit, the court affirmed the lower court and refused to consider the new argument, but also found it unavailing.


Fischer v. Forrest, 968 F. 3d 216 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2020 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com scholar.google.com

I have no idea if any court has found their Amicus Brief's convinving, but I'm curious if their 8th and 9th circuit cases are actual appeals, or if they are appearing as Amicii.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Barrister, Picklechu, Kosher Salt and 6 others
I'm ignorant of such matters so forgive me if this is dumb but if these new guys come in and somehow further screw up things for Russ can he go after them for misrepresenting him or improper representation or something like that?
 
Ralph Barnhardt said:
I'm ignorant of such matters so forgive me if this is dumb but if these new guys come in and somehow further screw up things for Russ can he go after them for misrepresenting him or improper representation or something like that?
Click to expand...
Theoretically possible, but impossibly unlikely.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: The Un-Clit, Pee Cola, Drowningman and 1 other person
Ralph Barnhardt said:
I'm ignorant of such matters so forgive me if this is dumb but if these new guys come in and somehow further screw up things for Russ can he go after them for misrepresenting him or improper representation or something like that?
Click to expand...
One big defense in Malpractice suits is that the case was unwinnable and the lawyer couldn't reasonably do anything to win the case.

They are three young lawyers who were probably in the same section at Stanford Law School, and decided to create a non-profit when they had nothing else going for them. The case was already a dumpster fire, so they're more or less malpractice proof. They're forced to rely on Russ' shitty arguments if they don't try to introduce new arguments. But at least they can add another actual appeal to their resumes when they either apply to a Copyright Trolling firm or create a new one.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: snoot booper, Umbra, Picklechu and 15 others
lolwatagain said:
One big defense in Malpractice suits is that the case was unwinnable and the lawyer couldn't reasonably do anything to win the case.

They are three young lawyers who were probably in the same section at Stanford Law School, and decided to create a non-profit when they had nothing else going for them. The case was already a dumpster fire, so they're more or less malpractice proof. They're forced to rely on Russ' shitty arguments if they don't try to introduce new arguments. But at least they can add another actual appeal to their resumes when they either apply to a Copyright Trolling firm or create a new one.
Click to expand...
Is that really all there is to it? I'm really confused by what their angle is.
 
I am unfamiliar with the various systems like pacer that US-kiwis employ to search court documents - is it possible to pull up cases a lawyer has worked on previously to check his/her track record? I'd be curious to see how many cases they've won. Apologies if this has already been asked and answered, this thread moves at a mile a minute and I didn't see it - only someone mentioning what kind of work they usually do (which is why I assume its searchable) but not the typical outcome.
 
  • Late
  • Like
Reactions: StinkySnack and wharf rat
Ralph Barnhardt said:
Is that really all there is to it? I'm really confused by what their angle is.
Click to expand...
their organisation does nothing but argue against fair use of copyrighted material. every case they pick up, they do this.
remember russ ranting about null referencing fair use in the website FAQ section? that's their angle. they see an opportunity to argue against fair use, that's why they attached themselves to this case.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: snoot booper, XxxwernxxX, Kosher Salt and 13 others
For those reading the new featured post by @Useful_Mistake...

This is going to get very expensive, very quickly, presuming this legal team isn't going to discover that they don't actually have any ground to stand on. Protip: They will make up some bullshit grounds to stand on, and even if it's bullshit Null and his lawyer will have to reply to it. Null is already out thousands of dollars a month on this and the Mountain Jew's bullshit, and that's before considering the DDOS and other expenses.

So a reminder, at the bottom of every page is this link:

How to Support the Forum​

This website was made possible by contributions from viewers like you. Thank you.​


Might be time to review it. The site gets several thousand people on it at any given moment, give or take. If just a few of us helped out, Null's financial problems would be gone, AND you would be helping to tell Greer to get fucked.
 
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: snoot booper, Cilleystring, XxxwernxxX and 34 others
Ralph Barnhardt said:
I'm really confused by what their angle is.
Click to expand...
They want:
1. To kill Fair Use
2. Build up a rep of killing fair use so big firm hires them.
Bloitzhole said:
is it possible to pull up cases a lawyer has worked on previously to check his/her track record?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Bloitzhole said:
Apologies if this has already been asked and answered, this thread moves at a mile a minute and I didn't see it - only someone mentioning what kind of cases they usually took, but not the outcome.
Click to expand...
What was mentioned was their litigation history which is painfully short. All of it can be found in this, this, this, this posts. Since nearly all of their contributions have been Amicus Briefs and not representations of Clients, I don't believe there is a single case they have "won"
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: XxxwernxxX, Umbra, Picklechu and 20 others
From what I understand filing as a poor requires you file in good faith, and both Greer and Melinda have shown they clearly aren't. Can't someone file to have their IFP status removed?

And isn't there some finding a court can do that says people are just filing shit to harass the shit out of someone? Does that need to be requested by Null or is it something a judge has to wise up and figure out that these assholes are just filing shit to target Null?
 
  • Optimistic
  • Agree
Reactions: Shaka Brah and Constellationzero
Cryin RN said:
For those outside of the US, you can support Josh's hot pepper podcast project at the Mad at the Internet gumroad. They'll even take your money every month! Wow!
Click to expand...
I was debating hinting at that in my previous post, but didn't want yet another source of regular support to get nuked. Figured there might be a reason why Null hadn't added mention of it to the support-the-forum thread? Not sure.


Also: Random thought. If Greer and Scott are filing IFP, does that mean their victims can send the damages bill to the court? I mean, if the court is paying their legal fees, why shouldn't they pay Null's?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Marvin, Clovis and 2 others
HTTP Error 404 said:
I was debating hinting at that in my previous post, but didn't want yet another source of regular support to get nuked. Figured there might be a reason why Null hadn't added mention of it to the support-the-forum thread? Not sure.


Also: Random thought. If Greer and Scott are filing IFP, does that mean their victims can send the damages bill to the court? I mean, if the court is paying their legal fees, why shouldn't they pay Null's?
Click to expand...
Josh is personally named as a defendant in this case. Supporting him as a person does not mean you support Kiwi Farms itself. For example, soup kitchens provide meth heads with meals, but in doing so are not supporting those meth heads' independent nocturnal bicycle repair businesses. Etc.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: snoot booper, Umbra, Picklechu and 11 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back