- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
Being a cunt isn't a disability, therefore it's perfectly acceptable to hate Russhole.
This is the greatest metaphor that has ever been used ITT. Bravo, sir.
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
- Thread starter Cryin RN
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
He is truly delusional and Deranged.
To put those facts into a document is insane. But Russ just confirmed everything we have thought about him.
To put those facts into a document is insane. But Russ just confirmed everything we have thought about him.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
Russell's use of OVERDRAMATIC and italicized words in a legal document is hysterical. I enjoy the fact that he writes legal docs like they're angry blog posts.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
Admitting in a court filing responding to a motion by the other party that literally says they reserve the right to push for him to be declared vexatious that his past, similar lawsuits were frivolous seems like a bold plan.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2019
Lmao he keeps digging himself in so much deeper.
It's funny and painful to watch.
It's funny and painful to watch.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
His criminal conviction for stalking is noticeably absent from his explanations.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2017
Except Russhole gave his own citation that states how Fremantle/Marathon bringing up his past lawsuits is totally relevant:
Fremantle/Marathon are making Russhole's pattern clear: he has repeatedly sued female celebrities to try to force them to give him attention. That's absolutely his sole motive for the lawsuit, which he confirmed repeatedly in his emails with Lens and her associate. He also made this absolutely transparent by the fact he's not seeking any monetary damages in his lawsuit, only attempting to force the defendants to let him on the show so he can be in the same room as Heidi Klum. Just like how he offered to dismiss the lawsuits against Taylor, Farrah, and Ariana if they'd go on a date with him.
Paragraph 31: Russhole admits his email was not clear.
Paragraph 32: "THAT EMAIL WAS PERFECTLY CLEAR, THE STUPID BITCH IS LYING!"
He so obviously wrote this document in one long seething stretch, between the meanderings and the contradictions and the typo/formatting errors and the RAGE CAPS.
Russhole: "Bringing up my other lawsuits is unfair and irrelevant!"
Also Russhole: "Let me bring up my other lawsuits because I want them to be relevant now!"
The same lying retard who complains about a section of the contract he signed being in all caps made it hard to read:
It's okay when he does it in his legal filings though! Also saying something being in all caps is harder to read than it being in normal case is such an obvious cop out excuse. It's clear from all this that Russhole never even bothered to read his audition agreement until after filing his lawsuit, and now he's desperately trying to find a way out of what he signed without reading.
What's funny is he acts like the defendants said his family didn't support him or something and he was correcting that, when Fremantle/Marathon never even mentioned his family. He's just that desperate to try to convince someone that he totally has supporters, he truly does! Like his Mom or Dad's opinions mean jack shit to the law.
Other particularly interesting/hilarious bits I noticed:
This screenshot from Russhole's "exhibits" is extremely telling. He's apologizing for past emails that he conspicuously does not provide. I don't think he's referring to the emails from January that are already documented, because he makes it clear the emails he's apologizing for are because he was mad about Lens "bringing up past things." I bet those emails were extremely toxic (and would be hilarious for us to read, though likely not to Lens and her law firm), so I pray to whatever powers may be listening that Lens will show us these emails in whatever response she files in to Russhole's latest rage screeds. Those emails could only help Fremantle/Marathon in making their case on how Russhole is an unstable convicted stalker who has repeatedly filed lawsuits to try to force women to do what he wants.
Russhole: "I wasn't trying to get Heidi Klum's attention!"
Also Russhole in multiple emails: "Please please pleeeeeease let me play my song for Heidi, let her decide if she likes it, not a court!"
While making the typical narcissist argument that all his bad behavior was so long ago and everyone should let it go, Russhole conveniently "forgets" that he kept suing Taylor Swift up through 2021.
Getting his picture taken with Ariana Grande gives him nightmares because she didn't agree to suck him his penis or hire him to write music for her. The sheer entitlement complex of this retard.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2017
Is there a decent chance that they have recordings? I mean, I get roped into a lot of “Karen by proxy” phone calls by my Mom and it seems like all of those are routinely recorded.
that would be an incredible card to play against Russell “ I have all the big chess pieces” Greer (who isn’t realizing he is playing poker)
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
Which kind of shores up Freemantle’s move to introduce your numerous on the record instances of bad faith before the courts. Yeah Russ, that one they can bring up, and it is highly relevant. That it also lets them paint you as the creepy sex pest that you are is an added bonus.
My only question as I dig through this latest harvest of Russ ramblings is is the Judge Absolutely required to kick it over to arbitration? Or does she have enough wiggle room to save everybody the costs, dismiss with prejudice, and assign costs and fees to Russhole?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Don't forget (Skordas hasn't) that Russhole speaks in John-speak. That "date" isn't a date unless it culminates in him getting him his penish shucked and some WOO HOO HOO.
But I'm sure Freemantle and Marathon's attorneys are already hep to that and will call it all out.
T.E.R.F
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2021
LOL. I'm imagining this whip-smart bigwig lawyer just cackling into the phone as she tries to understand Russ' retard babble on the other line. I'm so glad they chose a woman. And holy fuck those emails. I cannot believe this retard thought he could threaten them. Like go ahead, Russ. Please, please try to get as many news outlets to cover this as possible.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
FMD... this is the gift that keeps on giving.
Rather than allowing my retarded hot takes to dribble throughout the next couple of pages, I'll gather them up in a bucket and throw it down in one steaming mass.
If my understanding is correct, Russhole believes that the link the Defense made to Russhole's actions wrt to the AGT suit (viz. an attempt to seek the attention of Heidi Klum using the same MO he used to seek the attention of Mmes. Swift, Grande and Abraham) is irrelevant, however an anti-fair use case against a website owner over alleged copyright infringement is somehow relevant to this case.
1. tfw an unpaid intern does a far better job of writing a legal document than a Pro Se litigant with no fewer than 8 lawsuits to their name.
2. "It's not terrible to read, but it is hard to read".
Russhole's real disability seems to be tunnel vision.
"Reasonable person" being the key phrase. Russhole has proven himself to be anything but.
Maybe I have a slightly elevated opinion of myself, but I believe I'm a reasonable person. After reading the agreement, it became abundantly clear that in order to be an aspiring AGT contestant, you need to sign away a whole bunch of rights as the price of admission.
The section I found the easiest to understand is that in order to participate, the contestant agrees not to sue. There were a lot of words in ALL CAPS that drilled this part of the contract home. In this same section, it was spelled out that not only does the contestant agree not to sue, but in the event of a dispute between the contestant and AGT, it is to be resolved via an arbitration process with a clearly defined framework.
As I mentioned many pages ago, said agreement is also heavily weighted towards AGT, but I understand why such agreements in the entertainment industry need to be tightly controlled... because I'm a reasonable person.
I was today years old when I learned that restating facts held on public record is a form of personal attack.
Quite.
Rather than allowing my retarded hot takes to dribble throughout the next couple of pages, I'll gather them up in a bucket and throw it down in one steaming mass.
If my understanding is correct, Russhole believes that the link the Defense made to Russhole's actions wrt to the AGT suit (viz. an attempt to seek the attention of Heidi Klum using the same MO he used to seek the attention of Mmes. Swift, Grande and Abraham) is irrelevant, however an anti-fair use case against a website owner over alleged copyright infringement is somehow relevant to this case.
1. tfw an unpaid intern does a far better job of writing a legal document than a Pro Se litigant with no fewer than 8 lawsuits to their name.
2. "It's not terrible to read, but it is hard to read".
Russhole's real disability seems to be tunnel vision.
"Reasonable person" being the key phrase. Russhole has proven himself to be anything but.
Maybe I have a slightly elevated opinion of myself, but I believe I'm a reasonable person. After reading the agreement, it became abundantly clear that in order to be an aspiring AGT contestant, you need to sign away a whole bunch of rights as the price of admission.
The section I found the easiest to understand is that in order to participate, the contestant agrees not to sue. There were a lot of words in ALL CAPS that drilled this part of the contract home. In this same section, it was spelled out that not only does the contestant agree not to sue, but in the event of a dispute between the contestant and AGT, it is to be resolved via an arbitration process with a clearly defined framework.
As I mentioned many pages ago, said agreement is also heavily weighted towards AGT, but I understand why such agreements in the entertainment industry need to be tightly controlled... because I'm a reasonable person.
I was today years old when I learned that restating facts held on public record is a form of personal attack.
Quite.
Funny that. Yet he still saw fit to bring his current lolsuit against Null to the Court's attention. Gee, I wonder which one a reasonable person would deem more relevant to the case?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2021
Except Russhole gave his own citation that states how Fremantle/Marathon bringing up his past lawsuits is totally relevant:
View attachment 2965380
Fremantle/Marathon are making Russhole's pattern clear: he has repeatedly sued female celebrities to try to force them to give him attention. That's absolutely his sole motive for the lawsuit, which he confirmed repeatedly in his emails with Lens and her associate. He also made this absolutely transparent by the fact he's not seeking any monetary damages in his lawsuit, only attempting to force the defendants to let him on the show so he can be in the same room as Heidi Klum. Just like how he offered to dismiss the lawsuits against Taylor, Farrah, and Ariana if they'd go on a date with him.
Paragraph 31: Russhole admits his email was not clear.
Paragraph 32: "THAT EMAIL WAS PERFECTLY CLEAR, THE STUPID BITCH IS LYING!"
He so obviously wrote this document in one long seething stretch, between the meanderings and the contradictions and the typo/formatting errors and the RAGE CAPS.
Russhole: "Bringing up my other lawsuits is unfair and irrelevant!"
Also Russhole: "Let me bring up my other lawsuits because I want them to be relevant now!"
The same lying retard who complains about a section of the contract he signed being in all caps made it hard to read:
View attachment 2965400
It's okay when he does it in his legal filings though! Also saying something being in all caps is harder to read than it being in normal case is such an obvious cop out excuse. It's clear from all this that Russhole never even bothered to read his audition agreement until after filing his lawsuit, and now he's desperately trying to find a way out of what he signed without reading.
What's funny is he acts like the defendants said his family didn't support him or something and he was correcting that, when Fremantle/Marathon never even mentioned his family. He's just that desperate to try to convince someone that he totally has supporters, he truly does! Like his Mom or Dad's opinions mean jack shit to the law.
Other particularly interesting/hilarious bits I noticed:
View attachment 2965367
This screenshot from Russhole's "exhibits" is extremely telling. He's apologizing for past emails that he conspicuously does not provide. I don't think he's referring to the emails from January that are already documented, because he makes it clear the emails he's apologizing for are because he was mad about Lens "bringing up past things." I bet those emails were extremely toxic (and would be hilarious for us to read, though likely not to Lens and her law firm), so I pray to whatever powers may be listening that Lens will show us these emails in whatever response she files in to Russhole's latest rage screeds. Those emails could only help Fremantle/Marathon in making their case on how Russhole is an unstable convicted stalker who has repeatedly filed lawsuits to try to force women to do what he wants.
View attachment 2965430
Russhole: "I wasn't trying to get Heidi Klum's attention!"
Also Russhole in multiple emails: "Please please pleeeeeease let me play my song for Heidi, let her decide if she likes it, not a court!"
View attachment 2965436
While making the typical narcissist argument that all his bad behavior was so long ago and everyone should let it go, Russhole conveniently "forgets" that he kept suing Taylor Swift up through 2021.
View attachment 2965440
Getting his picture taken with Ariana Grande gives him nightmares because she didn't agree to suck him his penis or hire him to write music for her. The sheer entitlement complex of this retard.
Piggybacking off your post because your screenshot of the specific email to which I'm referring is easier to find this way, rather than going back through all the delicious milk of the past couple of days.
'... I felt your tactics were unprofessional of bringing up past things.'
Fucking hell, Dribbles. You mangle grammar like you'd presumably mangle a coleslaw sandwich.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Oh REALLY, pretty Goddamned sure the Arianna Grande Lolsuit DEFINITELY tried to involve the ADA. Mr. Skordas told the judge in one of their sidebar conversatons (right in front of the greasy gourd) that his ADA claims don't fly:
* The arena venue was fully accessible to drooling, ugly, slackjawed sexpests.
* He paid 1,000$. He met Arianna--TWEENER idol, as a drooling ugly slackjawed sexpest.
* He received service AND product in form of meet&greet plus photo.
* Arianna's FUCKING EYES ARE OPEN IN THAT PICTURE
* She was tryna be sexy next to a frayed drooling slackfaced sexpest BUM in a Men's Warehouse store seconds suit.
Holy shit...
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Ahhh the Russcoaster... such a slow slow ascent, but a steep furious ride on the way down
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
You gotta hand it to Russ, he never ever fails to deliver.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2015
Russhole: "I have a paralegal degree and am of reasonable and healthy mind."
Also Russhole: Gets so worked up he sends emails at 2 a.m.
Also Russhole: Gets so worked up he sends emails at 2 a.m.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Analysis because I haven't done a full "this is why this is all retarded" analysis in forever
And it does align and show motive. Like with all other lawsuits, you admit this one is also for a woman's attention. It's pretty relevant
There are several things wrong with this:
1. 9th circuit is not bound by the decisions of the 3rd circuit
2. Nothing in that case says or even suggests that the lawsuits which may be admitted would be ones for similar actions as before. In fact, logic would suggest otherwise.
3. Such interpretation would go against preestablished 9th circuit rulings in such as Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, (9th Cir. 2012), McCann v. Taleff, 19-35730 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020), Deville v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 20-56328 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2022), etc.
4. Such rulings allow for Fremantle to bring up Russ' previous lawsuits.
5. They are relevant to show your history of bad faith lawsuits (most self admitted as bad faith)
Getting a free pass, or asking ATG to pay for your bandmates is not reasonable accommodation. Yet still, this is further proof that this lawsuit is made in attempt to get before a female judge who's attention you desperately seek.
It's not deceptive, it's just true.
1. Just because you allegedly withdrew your complaint in Abraham case, doesn't mean you didn't sue for attention. You did. You even admitted that it looks frivolous. Proof:
2. You admit that you sued Swift for attention even in this paragraph I am quoting you from
3. Second and third lawsuits are lawsuits you admit to be bringing because she didn't accept your gift
4. As you admit, the Grande case was also for attention.
The dismissal is irrelevant when considering the motive for why you filed the lawsuit in the first place
You literally sued a woman because she wouldn't fuck you after your sex time ran out. To the extent that Hof would consider it unfair, it is hardly relevant. What is relevant however is this restraining order the judge put on you for this lawsuit. I wonder why?
Stalking or harassment, huh? Somehow I think Fremantle was right in their description of this case.
1. It's the only case filed in Nevada because you moved there recently.
2. Your last celebrity case was filed in 2020. Stop lying to the court
I honestly don't know what the fact that we are mean to him has to do with the fact that he has multiple lawsuits against celebrities, and multiple restraining orders.
You did. Here's the proof (SIGNATURE INCLUDED)
Your cited case says, as per your citation, that you cannot be forced to arbitrate disputes you did not agree too. But the contract shows that you did. Even if there was doubt that you agreed it, it should still be resolved by arbitration. Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021)
1. You read the document which said you agreed to waive "any and all claims" and you signed it. You knew full well what it meant.
2. Such words are binding and valid. See Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2011), Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Atl.-Pac. Cap., Inc., 497 F. App’x 740, 742 (9th
Cir. 2012), New Eng. Mech., Inc. v. Laborers Loc. Union 294, 909 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9th Cir. 1990), Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021), Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010).
1. Supreme Court later permitted very broad arbitration clauses. See Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010).
2. In the 9th circuit courts such broad clauses have been found valid and able to effect claims of ADA. See Mallia v. Drybar Holdings, 2:19-cv-00179-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2020)
While that might have been true in 1997, it is no longer true. See Mallia v. Drybar Holdings, 2:19-cv-00179-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2020), Shannon Zoller v. Gca Advisors, LLC, 20-15595 (9th Cir. 2021) (which counters both his ADA and Civil Rights act points)
Incorrect. See above
Signed delegations clauses delegating claims to arbitrator are not unconscionable. See Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021),
Russ could not find even a single 9th circuit case to counter Freemantle's one. I wonder why?
To the extent this might or might not be true, you have not shown how Fremantle gets "to see injunctive relief" while you "must give: it up.
The contract is the simplest contract I have ever read, and very easy to understand. What part of "any and all claims" is hard to understand, exactly?
This section requires the last two to be true. It is not. One of the sections he simply didn't prove, and the other one is an outright lie.
You proved nothing, and the court should laugh at you.
His declaration is ignored, as I was only interested in his legal arguments.
And it does align and show motive. Like with all other lawsuits, you admit this one is also for a woman's attention. It's pretty relevant
There are several things wrong with this:
1. 9th circuit is not bound by the decisions of the 3rd circuit
2. Nothing in that case says or even suggests that the lawsuits which may be admitted would be ones for similar actions as before. In fact, logic would suggest otherwise.
3. Such interpretation would go against preestablished 9th circuit rulings in such as Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, (9th Cir. 2012), McCann v. Taleff, 19-35730 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2020), Deville v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 20-56328 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2022), etc.
4. Such rulings allow for Fremantle to bring up Russ' previous lawsuits.
5. They are relevant to show your history of bad faith lawsuits (most self admitted as bad faith)
Getting a free pass, or asking ATG to pay for your bandmates is not reasonable accommodation. Yet still, this is further proof that this lawsuit is made in attempt to get before a female judge who's attention you desperately seek.
It's not deceptive, it's just true.
1. Just because you allegedly withdrew your complaint in Abraham case, doesn't mean you didn't sue for attention. You did. You even admitted that it looks frivolous. Proof:
2. You admit that you sued Swift for attention even in this paragraph I am quoting you from
3. Second and third lawsuits are lawsuits you admit to be bringing because she didn't accept your gift
4. As you admit, the Grande case was also for attention.
The dismissal is irrelevant when considering the motive for why you filed the lawsuit in the first place
You literally sued a woman because she wouldn't fuck you after your sex time ran out. To the extent that Hof would consider it unfair, it is hardly relevant. What is relevant however is this restraining order the judge put on you for this lawsuit. I wonder why?
Stalking or harassment, huh? Somehow I think Fremantle was right in their description of this case.
1. It's the only case filed in Nevada because you moved there recently.
2. Your last celebrity case was filed in 2020. Stop lying to the court
I honestly don't know what the fact that we are mean to him has to do with the fact that he has multiple lawsuits against celebrities, and multiple restraining orders.
You did. Here's the proof (SIGNATURE INCLUDED)
Your cited case says, as per your citation, that you cannot be forced to arbitrate disputes you did not agree too. But the contract shows that you did. Even if there was doubt that you agreed it, it should still be resolved by arbitration. Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021)
1. You read the document which said you agreed to waive "any and all claims" and you signed it. You knew full well what it meant.
2. Such words are binding and valid. See Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982, 988 (9th Cir. 2011), Wynn Resorts, Ltd. v. Atl.-Pac. Cap., Inc., 497 F. App’x 740, 742 (9th
Cir. 2012), New Eng. Mech., Inc. v. Laborers Loc. Union 294, 909 F.2d 1339, 1345 (9th Cir. 1990), Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021), Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010).
1. Supreme Court later permitted very broad arbitration clauses. See Rent-A-Ctr. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 130 S. Ct. 2772, 177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010).
2. In the 9th circuit courts such broad clauses have been found valid and able to effect claims of ADA. See Mallia v. Drybar Holdings, 2:19-cv-00179-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2020)
While that might have been true in 1997, it is no longer true. See Mallia v. Drybar Holdings, 2:19-cv-00179-RFB-DJA (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2020), Shannon Zoller v. Gca Advisors, LLC, 20-15595 (9th Cir. 2021) (which counters both his ADA and Civil Rights act points)
Incorrect. See above
Signed delegations clauses delegating claims to arbitrator are not unconscionable. See Zeevi v. Citibank, 2:19-cv-02206-GMN-BNW (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021),
Russ could not find even a single 9th circuit case to counter Freemantle's one. I wonder why?
To the extent this might or might not be true, you have not shown how Fremantle gets "to see injunctive relief" while you "must give: it up.
The contract is the simplest contract I have ever read, and very easy to understand. What part of "any and all claims" is hard to understand, exactly?
This section requires the last two to be true. It is not. One of the sections he simply didn't prove, and the other one is an outright lie.
You proved nothing, and the court should laugh at you.
His declaration is ignored, as I was only interested in his legal arguments.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
Holy shit what a textbook narc defense! Notice how he offers three mutually exclusive excuses for his behavior:
1) He MISSPOKE you guys. He meant to say "I will NOT do arbitration" but he forgot a crucial word.
2) He has ANXIETY and Mrs. Lens was being mean to him on the phone, therefore he is justified in saying anything to bring the phone call to a quick conclusion, even a lie to opposing counsel.
3) It was PUFFERY and he MISREPRESENTED HIS INTENT, that's all, as part of a bluff. He didn't think they would say yes! Bluffing and reverse psychology are time-honored legal traditions, your honor.
I also find it crushingly hilarious that he thinks it makes him look better to the judge to admit all his past lawsuits were "publicity stunts", "dumb" etc. I think on some level he understands that his lawsuits look bad (like all his suits, zing, gottem) because he himself understands them in terms of strategy and leverage, and knows they are only a pretense to say "I'll drop the suit in exchange for a date". I think Russ thinks "god imagine the type of loser who would file all those suits and mean it, I am only a highly experimental legal strategist, better make sure my fellow legal colleagues, the judge and opposing counsel, understand that." His pathetic need for the respect of the people who are about to metaphorically grab him by the ankles and dunk him headfirst into the trash is the best part of all of this.
Edit: I just got that Russ was talking about an email with Lens when he said "I simply didn't agree to arbitration in good faith". So uh, WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU SIGNED THE CONTRACT TO AUDITION you absolute chucklefuck
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
From what I can gather, all parties to a call must consent before recording commences. That said I'm not sure if it's standard practice within law firms to make audio recordings of phone conversations (assuming said consents are held).
Given that Russhole has submitted a declaration, could the Defense respond in kind? Whilst a trail of meticulous file note from Molly and Zachary would be fascinating, I suspect they may choose to ignore Russhole's declaration as it's just noise.
The Motion to Compel Arbitration acknowledged Russhole's propensity to generate excessive noise, yet didn't allow itself to be derailed as a result... unlike a typical Russhole filing that takes about 15 pages to get onto the meat of the matter, by which time the salmonella has well and truly taken over.
Judging by how poorly written the latest documents are, I fear Russhole has shoved one too many chess pieces up his nose.