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: 1,449 55.8%
  • Kanye West

    Votes: 283 10.9%
  • Ariana Grande

    Votes: 608 23.4%

  • Total voters
    2,595
These are the kind of guys who make a federal case out of it when their car gets towed. Grimm v. City of Portland, 971 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2020). "Grimm" here is, in fact, Andrew Grimm and he was represented by Gregory Keenan.

Andy Grimm left his car illegally parked for six days and on the seventh it was towed by the City of Portland. Rather than paying his fucking parking tickets, he had a Greer-level trauma tantrum. And, because the City of Portland is completely incompetent in how they give notice of towing, he won.

Thus began the illustrious career of the Digital Plights Rights Institute.
 
They even seem to be working for free....what the fuck happened?

About the lawfirm:
The Digital Justice Foundation (“DJF”) advocates for individual rights in digital spaces and aims to ensure that traditional notions of justice and civil liberties continue to thrive in the digital age. In carrying out this mission, the DJF places a particular focus on being a voice for underrepresented individuals and interests.

The DJF’s work in copyright law serves as an important cornerstone of this mission. Indeed, the DJF sees individual copyright protections as an integral part of a stable digital economy and well-functioning political system, advancing important humanistic values such as privacy, consent, and digital dignity.


While certain organizations feel that digital technologies have undermined the importance of copyright’s protections, the DJF firmly believes that these technologies have made copyright more important than ever. For example, an often-overlooked consequence of the internet is that, for the first time in history, most citizens are now regular creators and publishers of content. The emergence of a content-creating public gives copyright’s protections a newfound importance to a vastly wider class of citizens than in previous times.

Public debates on copyright should reflect this development. Yet the public’s interest in copyright often goes unrepresented in the inter-industry disputes that shape the development of copyright law. To correct this absence, the Digital Justice Foundation is a committed advocate before courts and policymakers for the rights of individual creators and for the often-underappreciated public interest in their rights.

Beyond the copyright context, the DJF promotes and protects civil liberties, privacy rights and employee rights as they are affected by new technologies. For these reasons, the DJF and its attorneys have been at the forefront of emergent legal issues surrounding algorithmic discrimination and governmental adoption of new technologies to administer traditional government functions. The DJF is also exploring novel ways to harness the power of technology to expand access to law.

In an age of rapid technological development, entrenched interests often drown out individual voices and overshadow the development of individual rights. The DJF is committed to ensuring that technology and traditional rights develop hand-in-hand.
They have only 3 lawyers, two of which took on Russ' appeal.

View attachment 2779942

Info from:


Libertarians eh? You would think they would be pro fair-use.

Guess its true. Libertarians just hate Null for some reason.
 
So if these blokes actually read Russ’s case and decide they want nothing to do with this particular shit show, can they back out at any given time, only at a certain point of time or not at all?

I mean, I’m not suggesting that it sounds like these sharks have any craps to give about being involved with ridiculous suits but I’m asking on the off chance that one of them has a moment of clarity.

Also, has Null started selling his bath water yet?
 
So if these blokes actually read Russ’s case and decide they want nothing to do with this particular shit show, can they back out at any given time, only at a certain point of time or not at all?

I mean, I’m not suggesting that it sounds like these sharks have any craps to give about being involved with ridiculous suits but I’m asking on the off chance that one of them has a moment of clarity.

Also, has Null started selling his bath water yet?
I had the same question, it has always been my impression that someone could remove their representation but that once established legal representation can’t quit.
 
So if these blokes actually read Russ’s case and decide they want nothing to do with this particular shit show, can they back out at any given time
I had the same question, it has always been my impression that someone could remove their representation but that once established legal representation can’t quit.
From the Utah rules:
Screenshot_20211208-120937_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20211208-121605_Chrome.jpg
From 10th circuit local rules:
Screenshot_20211208-123859_Drive.jpg

The 10th circuit does uses Utah Rules of Professional Conduct when the case arises out of Utah. See, for example, Morganroth v. DeLorean, 98-4125 (10th Cir. 2000), United States v. Anderson, 319 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2003)
 
Last edited:
As with anything related to Russ... Even lawyers that offer services are utterly incompetent and shit. :story:

Never would've predicted ol' drooling litigant sped would provide this much amusement. I just feel bad Null and the farms have to deal with dumbshit from this dumbass and he isn't branded as a vexatious litigant everywhere. Same with dirty mountain jew.
 
If an anti-fair use org is intervening in an obscure case in an attempt to build precedent, that may be a situation where a pro-fair use org should intervene too. Shame that I generally don’t see Marc Randazza involving himself with fair use; generally from my observation he seems to go after defamation/prior restraint lawfare. Randazza representing the Farms in a matter like this would be fucking hilarious.
 
If an anti-fair use org is intervening in an obscure case in an attempt to build precedent, that may be a situation where a pro-fair use org should intervene too. Shame that I generally don’t see Marc Randazza involving himself with fair use; generally from my observation he seems to go after defamation/prior restraint lawfare. Randazza representing the Farms in a matter like this would be fucking hilarious.
even if such a pro-fair-use nonprofit exists, no reputable organisation would want to be associated with KF in any way, so i wouldn't get my hopes up for something like that to happen.
 
even if such a pro-fair-use nonprofit exists, no reputable organisation would want to be associated with KF in any way, so i wouldn't get my hopes up for something like that to happen.
Lawyers who care about that kind of shit know that new restrictions on free speech and/or fair use are aimed first at the least popular instances of it, and thus those restrictions have to be prevented by specifically defending shit that’s controversial. Normies generally only care about freedom of expression when they agree with/like the expression; fighting for freedom of expression thus requires lawyers who will, in Randazza’s words, “defend to the death your right to sell videos of two men shitting into each other’s mouths while Nickelback plays.”
 
Russell isn't a beggar. He is more of a pay for it or sue you for it kinda guy
Touche. My point is that regardless of his approach, he is effectively begging for sex. Albeit quite aggressively.
P.S. Russ, you are a deformed psychopathic twig and I wouldn't have sex with you regardless of how much you sue me for.
 
Russell isn't a beggar. He is more of a pay for it or sue you for it kinda guy
Russ is a bit of a beggar, he wants the public to make him famous and fund his ridiculous PACs.
But he words it in such a way that it's for other peoples benefits too not just his. He thinks if he, a disabled songwriter, can get millions of views and bang Heidi Klum, then the rest of you poor pathetic disabled riffraff can aspire to great things too. Hence why he pleads that he wants to inspire people if you just let him on AGT and make him famous.

Or how he wants you to fund his PAC and volunteer your time, for the poor sex workers, and not focus on the part he can have raunchy and cheap fuck fests more often.
 
even if such a pro-fair-use nonprofit exists, no reputable organisation would want to be associated with KF in any way, so i wouldn't get my hopes up for something like that to happen.
Back in the day ACLU helped literal KKK and Nazis with their legal defense (one of the best SCOTUS decisions on free speech came from that) because no one else would. But now ACLU is cucked beyond belief.
 
Back