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

[The Un-Clit]

Wait til they read what he has filed and what a mess it is.
They may just go with it knowing they will lose.
This is strange for Russ to take help especially since he said "I am best" in his IG post.
Could our deformed goblin had a second of awareness? NAHHHH!

It's interesting, it seems that the contact page for this law firm is currently not working and unable to receive submissions warning them about just what level of Streisand Effect this law firm might encounter if they continue to represent convicted stalker, known sex pest and vexatious lawsuit-filing Russhole Greer and that it might be a good idea if they googled their newest pro-bono client. Perhaps they have had several contact messages to this end already?

 

[UCantCCPMe]

I'm still confused as to how you can have a "non-profit" law firm. What do they file motions during the day and beg for pennies in the gutter at night? I'd get it if they were under the umbrella of some non-profit organization and doing pro bono work, funded by said non-profit. That being said, I think Russel would have a better go of it if he hired the combined legal counsel of Saul Goodman, Lionel Hutz and Jim Carry's character from Liar Liar.

I'm not exactly sure what Russtard is trying to accomplish. Hypothetically, let's say Russel did win and Josh had to remove Russel's shit. What's to stop a particularly special individual such as myself from spreading his name far and wide across the internet as a spineless retard that hires lawyers to protect his fragile little ego? Maybe I'll even hit up T-Swift and get her in on the act.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The case acceptance rate is a bit of a misnomer. It ignores factors like stupid appeals by say Melinda Scott.

That's the best method we have, still. Unless you have stats on how many of SCOTUS appeals are frivolous (I'm guessing more than half).

The Supreme Court has been looking for potential cases to deal with the digital age for awhile.

And they have. They've dealt with "Digital Age" issues many time already. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S tackled copyright in digital age (specifically of code) and fair use. Van Buren v. United States 593 U.S tackled computer abuse, and unauthorized access of computers. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. tackled Hate Speech (again) and registration of offensive trademarks, etc, etc, etc.

What possible value could Russ' case hold to SCOTUS? What is there they would want to "deal with"?

I'm still confused as to how you can have a "non-profit" law firm. What do they file motions during the day and beg for pennies in the gutter at night?

It's like charity to help starving children. Except the starving child is someone who is getting their rights violated. People donate tons of money to such orgs, ACLU, the most famous of such organisations.

 

[mindlessobserver]

That's the best method we have, still. Unless you have stats on how many of SCOTUS appeals are frivolous (I'm guessing more than half).

And they have. They've dealt with "Digital Age" issues many time already. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S tackled copyright in digital age (specifically of code) and fair use. Van Buren v. United States 593 U.S tackled computer abuse, and unauthorized access of computers. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. tackled Hate Speech (again) and registration of offensive trademarks, etc, etc, etc.

What possible value could Russ' case hold to SCOTUS? What is there they would want to "deal with"?

It's like charity to help starving children. Except the starving child is someone who is getting their rights violated. People donate tons of money to such orgs, ACLU, the most famous of such organisations.

Fair Use copyright claims have been a scourge since the advent of youtube and other digital social media outlets. There has been a plague of "copyright trolls" in the lower courts. Akila Hughes v. Benjamin was the tip of the iceberg. Try diving down the rabbit hole that is Richard Liebowitz.

 

[Meat Target]

I'm still confused as to how you can have a "non-profit" law firm.

In general (according to one of my accounting professors in college), "non-profit" organizations are a misnomer. It's a tax thing. They still have to pay their employees and stay solvent.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Fair Use copyright claims have been a scourge since the advent of youtube and other digital social media outlets. There has been a plague of "copyright trolls" in the lower courts. Akila Hughes v. Benjamin was the tip of the iceberg. Try diving down the rabbit hole that is Richard Lievowitz.

What specific part is this addressing?

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

What’s the likelihood of these cowboy lolyers dropping their support for the case once they’ve actually sat down and read it? Gotta say, the idea that they’d insert themselves into a case without even reading it sounds ridiculous. You’d think lawyers wouldn’t be so stupid, but clownworld I suppose.

Also, I’m a non-lawfag. Are these shysters actually going to represent Russ in court and write documents for him? Someone said their role (‘amicus’) amounts to nothing more than “I agree with this”. What will they actually be doing if they do stick with Russ’s insane ‘MOOOOOOOM!!’ tantrum?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Also, I’m a non-lawfag. Are these shysters actually going to represent Russ in court and write documents for him?

Yes. They are representing him.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm still confused as to how you can have a "non-profit" law firm. What do they file motions during the day and beg for pennies in the gutter at night? I'd get it if they were under the umbrella of some non-profit organization and doing pro bono work, funded by said non-profit. That being said, I think Russel would have a better go of it if he hired the combined legal counsel of Saul Goodman, Lionel Hutz and Jim Carry's character from Liar Liar.

They probably come from money and can afford to do this bullshit for free. Nobody can afford to work for free unless they're independently wealthy somehow or inherited money. Also all non-profit necessarily means is that the corporation itself doesn't turn a profit and its income doesn't directly inure to the benefit of any person, which surprise surprise, still means they can massively overpay themselves for services rendered depending how it's set up.

This doesn't look like it has an income so it is like a pro bono firm but instead, anti bono.

 

[mindlessobserver]

What specific part is this addressing?

There is a misunderstanding of how the DMCA, Section 230 of the CDA, and the 1st Amendment work together and it's bogging the lower courts down in a cesspool of frivolous and questionably frivolous litigation.

Which to date has never been addressed by the Court. They have largely deferred to Congress to sort the mess out. Which they have not. The issue of digital copyrights is a huge issue atm with very limited precedential guidance. It is not helped by the fact that the cases usually involve small time creatives who never escalate things to the top.

 

[Pee Cola]

In general (according to one of my accounting professors in college), "non-profit" organizations are a misnomer. It's a tax thing. They still have to pay their employees and stay solvent.

Yes. As perverse as this sounds, a not-for-profit needs to make a profit in order to remain operational (which is why many in the NFP space refer to this as a 'surplus' rather than a profit).

The exact definition of a "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" organisation may vary between jurisdictions, but my understanding is that a not-for-profit can and should make a surplus to remain solvent, but any such surpluses can't be distributed to its management or members in cash i.e. they don't pay bonuses to staff or dividends to members.

That said, @AnOminous correctly points out that this wouldn't stop a less scrupulous NFP from paying their staff/management an inflated salary to get around this. Although it may be harder to do this in some places than others; in some countries, NFPs are obligated to publish their annual financial statements to maintain their NFP status, thus opening them up for scrutiny by concerned members of the public, who may in turn raise concerns with the NFP's regulator. Here is an example of such a regulator.

Getting back to the profits surpluses, a reputable not-for-profit will most likely bank these surpluses with a view to applying them to advancing the cause of their organisation, as decided by the organisation's board e.g. providing services to the community.

The Australian Taxation Office explains this better than I ever could.

 

[AnOminous]

It's like charity to help starving children. Except the starving child is someone who is getting their rights violated. People donate tons of money to such orgs, ACLU, the most famous of such organisations.

Or in this case, the starving children are vastly wealthy megacorporations who would benefit from the elimination of the rights of the people.

I believe this mostly duplicates what we've already seen but from the SoS:

Nebraska Secretary of State - Corporation and Business Entity Searches

Find corporate entities on the official site of the state of Nebraska website.

www.nebraska.gov

[If anyone wants they can get other documents here for a few bucks.]

DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC.​

Tue Dec 7 21:27:14 2021

SOS Account Number
10251626
Status
Active

Principal Office Address
15287 PEPPERWOOD DR
OMAHA, NE 68154
USA
Registered Agent and Office Address
ANDREW GRIMM
15287 PEPPERWOOD DRIVE
OMAHA, NE 68154

Nature of Business
NON-PROFIT FOR DIGITAL JUSTICE
Entity Type
Non Profit (Dom) Corp
Qualifying State: NE
Date Filed
Nov 03 2017

Next Report Due Date
Jan 01 2023
Nonprofit Type
Public Benefit
Has Members
Yes

Corporation Position	Name	Address
President	GREGORY W KEENAN	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Secretary	ANDREW B GRIMM	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ANDREW B GRIMM	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ALEXANDER JOZEFOV	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ALEXANDER JOZEFOV	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	GREGORY W KEENAN	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	PETER C WALCZAK	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	PETER C WALCZAK	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA

 

[Meat Target]

You’d think lawyers wouldn’t be so stupid, but clownworld I suppose.

Also, I’m a non-lawfag. Are these shysters actually going to represent Russ in court and write documents for him? Someone said their role (‘amicus’) amounts to nothing more than “I agree with this”. What will they actually be doing if they do stick with Russ’s insane ‘MOOOOOOOM!!’ tantrum?

Lawyers simultaneously play the roles of prostitute and pimp. They'll do anything for money.

 

[HumanHive]

And they have. They've dealt with "Digital Age" issues many time already. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S tackled copyright in digital age (specifically of code) and fair use. Van Buren v. United States 593 U.S tackled computer abuse, and unauthorized access of computers. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. tackled Hate Speech (again) and registration of offensive trademarks, etc, etc, etc.

What possible value could Russ' case hold to SCOTUS? What is there they would want to "deal with"?

EXCUSE ME, Russel Greer is a disabled individual and his rights (although too often trodden upon ;_; ) matter just as much as an able bodied person's. Clarence Thomas himself will be moved to tears by Russel's story of heartbreak and loneliness, applaud the fact that Russel wore a suit and tie to his Supreme Court hearing, and rule in favor of stripping the Fair Use Doctrine from US Law forever. You think you can make fun of anyone you want just because they don't get dates from Taylor Swift? Think again, bucko.

 

[Sam Losco]

Or in this case, the starving children are vastly wealthy megacorporations who would benefit from the elimination of the rights of the people.

I believe this mostly duplicates what we've already seen but from the SoS:

Nebraska Secretary of State - Corporation and Business Entity Searches

Find corporate entities on the official site of the state of Nebraska website.

www.nebraska.gov

[If anyone wants they can get other documents here for a few bucks.]

DIGITAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC.​

Tue Dec 7 21:27:14 2021

SOS Account Number
10251626
Status
Active

Principal Office Address
15287 PEPPERWOOD DR
OMAHA, NE 68154
USA
Registered Agent and Office Address
ANDREW GRIMM
15287 PEPPERWOOD DRIVE
OMAHA, NE 68154

Nature of Business
NON-PROFIT FOR DIGITAL JUSTICE
Entity Type
Non Profit (Dom) Corp
Qualifying State: NE
Date Filed
Nov 03 2017

Next Report Due Date
Jan 01 2023
Nonprofit Type
Public Benefit
Has Members
Yes

Corporation Position	Name	Address
President	GREGORY W KEENAN	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Secretary	ANDREW B GRIMM	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ANDREW B GRIMM	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ALEXANDER JOZEFOV	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	ALEXANDER JOZEFOV	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	GREGORY W KEENAN	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	PETER C WALCZAK	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA
Director	PETER C WALCZAK	15287 PEPPERWOOD DR OMAHA, NE 68154 USA

Wow, smart guys. Use your house for that instead of a PO Box. Must be superlawyers. Andrew owns that house:

 

[Useful_Mistake]

There is a misunderstanding of how the DMCA, Section 230 of the CDA, and the 1st Amendment work together

Which to date has never been addressed by the Court

I'll give you that one. SCOTUS hasn't touched CDA since 1997 when in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) it ruled that parts of CDA (§223(a)(1)(B), §223(a)(2), §223(d) ) are unconstitutional.

However, this case is a bad CDA case for SCOTUS to take on. The Copyright portion was dismissed without even addressing the CDA because Greer failed that badly. So was the electronic communications harassment. The court addressed the various defamations claims both looking at it under CDA and without, and found that Greer had no case under either of them. I'm just not sure what they could find here that'd be worth their time. Reafirming that websites are protected under CDA?

There is a misunderstanding of how the DMCA, Section 230 of the CDA, and the 1st Amendment work together

1st and CDA don't work together. If CDA applies, question of first is irrelevant. It's one or the other.

Similarly DMCA and CDA don't work together either.

I agree that SCOTUS should take on CDA case, but this is just a terrible one, imo. I do think I see where you are coming from even if I don't entirely agree with your conclusion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Greer's possibility of reaching SCOTUS.

I do apologise if some of my responses were on the meaner side, though. Upon reread some of them seem needlessly harsh.

which has largely deferred to Congress to sort the mess out.

It is Congress' problem, though. While I would want to see a CDA case, any possible conflict in law is probably for the Congress to fix. Too bad the gov barely works.

The issue of digital copyrights

With abuse of it?

 

[Windex]

It was hosted here for some time before it was removed, IIRC. Russ did manage to catch a screenshot of the book once being posted here.


View attachment 2781786

He claims that Null contributed to the infringement of the book and the song

Null did not comply with the DMCA he recognized as valid.

is it just me being a retard on mobile, or is that post referenced in Greer’s filing, removed/gone?

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

is it just me being a retard on mobile, or is that post referenced in Greer’s filing, removed/gone?

I don't see it either. Hmmmm...

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Wow, smart guys. Use your house for that instead of a PO Box. Must be superlawyers. Andrew owns that house:
View attachment 2782771View attachment 2782772

They're the perfect lawyers for Greer.

 

[facepalm]

These lawyers probably have no idea the hell they've unleashed on themselves.