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 55.9%
  • Kanye West

    Votes: 283 10.9%
  • Ariana Grande

    Votes: 607 23.4%

  • Total voters
    2,594
The idea is that if Russ made this himself, he probably forged the signature too. Which is not good. I think that's what most people are going at

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely think he forged the signature as well, but the writing it himself isn’t the problem. The actual, y’know, forgery is. And also the fact that it’s just as unreadable as all his other garbage. I would say that he uses the same rhetorical style in his legal writing as he would when speaking, but his, uh, style with speaking is less intentional and more spray-and-pray, and it’s hard to follow his ideas with how bad his grammar can be.
 
Just realized the Ariana photo gallery is still up, and Russ is the most popular guy by a pretty big margin.
meetngreet.png
 
Screenshot 2022-02-08 234803.png
Your last lawsuit against a woman celebrity was not 4 years ago. It was in 2020
Screenshot 2022-02-08 003611.png

Screenshot 2022-02-08 234951.png
Screenshot 2022-02-08 235000.png

But it is relevant Russ. It speaks about years and years of bad faith behavior, abuse of the system, etc. Judicial notice in those cases are always appropriate.

Screenshot 2022-02-08 235721.png

I'm genuinely unsure what these cases have to prove. One was dismissed without an order, one was dismissed due to a settlement, and one had absolutely nothing to do with litigation history or judicial notice. To the extent this is somehow a mistake on my part, I contend that your previous lawsuits were fraudulent

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000056.png
Screenshot 2022-02-09 000113.png
It makes it the fact that you are a frequent frivolous litigant a lot more seeable. It's very relevant in determining how the judge should deal with you.

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000237.png
"I haven't sued this one women, therefore I never sued women for attention, please ignore my lawsuits" is a very weird argument. Bad one too, at that.

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000409.png
How would it cause confusion and waste time?

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000520.png

1. But they were fraudulent.
2. This lawsuit is not about ADA. It's about you trying to return Arbitration rules to what it was in the 1997.

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000741.png
Very nice citations, Russ. Do you have any that are binding in the 9th circuit, though? No? Thought so.

Screenshot 2022-02-09 000750.png

You have showed nothing but failure
 

Russhole's lying to the court again. His last lawsuit against Taylor Swift was filed in 2020, and was dismissed in 2021. He didn't file again because 2021 was the year he filed his lawsuit against Heidi Klum Fremantle/Marathon. So that's, at most, one year ago that he was in an active lawsuit naming a female celebrity as the defendant. And as @Bridgeburner already pointed out, he's doing his best to pretend the multiple restraining orders (and the stalking conviction) don't exist. Again, lying to the court.

1644357755683.png


Let's be real: the only reason Heidi Klum wasn't listed as a defendant in this suit was because Russhole couldn't point to any liked social media posts or any other tenuous thread of alleged contact between him and Heidi/her agents/her managers. The goal of this lawsuit is absolutely to try to force Heidi Klum to sit in the same room as him and listen to his shitty song about her; that's what he was begging Lens for in his emails to her.

1644358126961.png


Holy shit, the only person making "logical jumps" here is Russhole. The defendants didn't describe him as anything close to this weird serial killer fantasy life he's describing for himself. Comparing yourself to Ted Bundy is never a good look, no matter how you mean it.

1644359329016.png


Yes, so insignificant that Russhole begged Lens to be allowed to go on the show and meet Heidi Klum specifically in like three different emails, bizarrely claiming that Lens and the other lawyers wanted a judge or arbiter to decide whether his shitty song was in fact shit rather than Heidi, when that isn't the situation in this lawsuit at all. Yep, this lawsuit totally isn't about getting her attention at all! :story:

1644358496299.png


Except Russhole has claimed he was discriminated against based on his disability in every single one of his lawsuits against celebrity women. Also in every single one of his lawsuits against celebrity women, he was (by his own admission) trying get their attention and force them to listen to a song he wrote for them. The fact his lawsuits were all dismissed (because he had no case and/or he didn't know how to serve lawsuits properly) doesn't make those facts any less facts.

1644358849238.png


Except they're also basing this off the multiple emails he sent to Lens begging to meet Heidi and play his shitty song for her. Also the fact that the only relief he's seeking in this case is a fucking court order literally FORCING Heidi Klum (and the other judges, but we know Russhole doesn't care about those) to be in the same room with him and listen to his shitty song. This is beyond stupidity or even willful ignorance at this point; Russhole must be desperately praying to the Mormon Jesus he forsook that the judge somehow just doesn't notice or forgets about all those emails Lens provided in her last filings, and also doesn't notice how he's actively lying to the court about his own legal history.

1644359171418.png


I'm not a legal Kiwi, but doesn't this citation actually support allowing Russhole's history of frivolous and harassing lawsuits against celebrity women to be taken official notice of in this case? (Yeah it's not in the right circuit to be precedential on the 9th, but still!)
 
View attachment 2968739
Your last lawsuit against a woman celebrity was not 4 years ago. It was in 2020
View attachment 2968738

View attachment 2968746
View attachment 2968747

But it is relevant Russ. It speaks about years and years of bad faith behavior, abuse of the system, etc. Judicial notice in those cases are always appropriate.

View attachment 2968773

I'm genuinely unsure what these cases have to prove. One was dismissed without an order, one was dismissed due to a settlement, and one had absolutely nothing to do with litigation history or judicial notice. To the extent this is somehow a mistake on my part, I contend that your previous lawsuits were fraudulent

View attachment 2968777
View attachment 2968778
It makes it the fact that you are a frequent frivolous litigant a lot more seeable. It's very relevant in determining how the judge should deal with you.

View attachment 2968786
"I haven't sued this one women, therefore I never sued women for attention, please ignore my lawsuits" is a very weird argument. Bad one too, at that.

View attachment 2968796
How would it cause confusion and waste time?

View attachment 2968801

1. But they were fraudulent.
2. This lawsuit is not about ADA. It's about you trying to return Arbitration rules to what it was in the 1997.

View attachment 2968807
Very nice citations, Russ. Do you have any that are binding in the 9th circuit, though? No? Thought so.

View attachment 2968808

You have showed nothing but failure
He’s really in a rage about his past litigation being brought up. Poor neighbours. You just know Russ has been “panicking and vomiting” all weekend, slamming his paws down on his keyboard hashing out these “””legal””” rebuttals. Damn Fremantle cock blocking him from Heidi Klum, oh hang in, no, just the judges in general, not Heidi in particular even though the song is to “flatter” her, he doesn’t mean anything by that, no. What do you mean, he’s written songs and sued for the same reasons before? Unfair! MOOOOM, TELL THEM!

Semper Fi, Ms Lens. Looks like you hit the spot perfectly.
 
Russhole's lying to the court again. His last lawsuit against Taylor Swift was filed in 2020, and was dismissed in 2021.
Exactly! I had pointed that out as well in my two recent analyses.
The goal of this lawsuit is absolutely to try to force Heidi Klum to sit in the same room as him and listen to his shitty song about her; that's what he was begging Lens for in his emails to her.
That, and he practically admits it in his complaint against Fremantle.
I'm not a legal Kiwi, but doesn't this citation actually support allowing Russhole's history of frivolous and harassing lawsuits against celebrity women to be taken official notice of in this case? (Yeah it's not in the right circuit to be precedential on the 9th, but still!)
Yes, it might be actually damaging to his argument.
 

Thoshe cashes haff nothig to do wiff da ADA!

Except when you SOOED Arianna Grande and blubbered and bitched that you were ADA violated. And when based Skordas then restates the TL;DR to that BIAS judge that the arena was accessible--you received your ticket and your assigned seating--and accessed it. You paid for, and received your 1,000$ meet and greet complete with photo--and HER EYES ARE OPEN, you fucking MONG--and she was ACKTUALLEH (ugh) touching your Men's Warehouse store seconds.

Otherwise... totally unrelated.
 
Can Russhole get in "trouble" with all these outright LIES he's putting in court documents?
Theoretically, sure. Practically it might not be likely. He could get sanctioned, though.

A bit more info can be found in an old post of mine
Not as much as you'd think. Unless the case is very public, and the lie was extreme, perjury is not that often prosecuted. Laws regarding Perjury can be found here and here. There's another problem with perjury, the so called "two witness rule" that require two witnesses to defeat the lying statement of the liar, rule that has been upheld by SCOTUS (Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606). Your lie also has to be "material" (i.e. significant) (Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461). Usually it's too much hastle in many states, but that doesn't mean you should lie to the court, because if you piss them off, perjury will be the least of your worries.
 
1644361234992.png


1644361306428.png


Like I know it's nothing new, but I don't think I've ever seen him lay it out so blatantly. They are only lawyers, they only have the facts, they don't know what is in his MIND or in his HEART. But at the same time, they should know he doesn't mean some of the things he says, but only SOME of the things, and they should be able to tell the difference.

Obviously it's part of his schtick and he relies on it so heavily. One day he's being a shock jock, just trying to rile everybody up — he definitely didn't mean it literally when he said it should be illegal for women to turn down a disabled man for a date. And when he went on and on about what an amazeballs time he had meeting Ariana Grande, he just was just hiding the pain caused by her discrimination.

It's other people who should know better, and if they misunderstand, well, he will do them a favor and explain. And if they don't accept his explanation or they don't believe him, well... they just hate disabled people.

Anyway, among all of the other nonsense peppering these new documents, this stood out to me.
 
Russ is out here walking into the shark tank, smirking as he tries to remember how to spell words with his poker cards.

Thank god they're not using naked lady playing cards.


Slurpy, derpy, miserable Russell Greer. :heart-full:

Now I can't stop imagining Greer on an episode of Shark Tank. He brings with him a sketchy idea for a mobile app that will allow an individual who has restraining orders against him, to track the locations of his victims, so that he can avoid accidentally straying into their vicinity.

He is requesting a $10million investment in exchange for a 5% stake in the company. He disarmingly jokes that, if any of the Sharks want to throw in a date with their daughter or granddaughter, then that might convince him to accept their offer.

Accommodations have been made in advance of Greer's appearance on the show. His presentation is given by the vocalist from his America's Got Talent audition. Greer stands off to one side in his red sequinned jacket, bouncing up and down on the balls of feet, as he holds up flashcards that emphasise key words in the pitch.

When his proxy explains the plight of feeling like you can't leave the house in case you accidentally run into a person who has a restraining order against you, Russell holds up a card bearing the word " Frustration". In the bottom corner a diminutive caricature of Greer is pictured with zig-zagged lines of vexation emanating for the his greasy, tousled locks.

Greer's 'girl tracker' app will be a mandatory element of any restraining order, with all victims compelled by the courts to upload it to their mobile devices. It will allow the subject of the order to keep tabs on the injured party in real time, thereby ensuring that they do inadvertently venture across their path. Victims are also encouraged to upload details of any future plans they have to the app, so the restrainee can take the appropriate avoiding measures.

When the phone of someone who has a restraining order against them breaches the area of exclusion around a victim, it will vibrate with increasing vigour and intensity the closer they get.

Users of the app will be given the option of temporarily lifting a restraining order, allowing the penalised individual to venture closer without incurring any legal consequences. Greer is of the belief they should be automatically opted-in to this preference, as doing so empowers women by giving them (and not the courts) the final say over who approaches them. If a woman wishes to uphold the restraining order, all she need do is uncheck the box and await approval from a court-appointed representative

In an attempt to curry favour with the panel, Every Breath You Take plays over a photomontage of young female relatives of the Sharks, harvested from social media, along with any accompanying location data that Greer has been able to lay his sweaty paws on.

With the presentation concluded, the Sharks rise from their seats as one, and proceed to viciously bludgeon Greer with the gold bars that they use to taunt candidates and purchase high-end coffee and foie gras.

As the unconscious body of Greer is dragged away by its ankles, painting the studio floor with a broad, bloody smear, a trio of burly women amble mannishly into the centre of the room and commence a pitch for a 'no questions asked' mob cemetery, on the site of their ailing alpaca ranch.
 
Back