Cultcow Russell Greer / @ 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

[NIGGO KILLA]

Isn't the big answer the fact that all of the listed grievances are irrelevant to Russholes case?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Am I interpreting this correctly: Because Null more or less said "lol get fuckt retard" that somehow impacts the legality of the situation?

I think their focus is that he mocked him and posted it all on KF while saying he wouldn't do shit. That, in their opinion, with all the good will given to Russ, could pass enough as inducement to survive motion to dismiss.

 

[theshitposter]

Am I interpreting this correctly: Because Null more or less said "lol get fuckt retard" that somehow impacts the legality of the situation?

bad faith eventually gets interpreted as bad faith

what else was on your mind?

 

[timewave0]

How has this freak not been ruled a vexatious litigant after all of the frivolous suits he’s been involved in? Fuck the 10th circuit court

 

[WelperHelper99]

Copyrighted material gets removed, and Null pays as much damages as Russ can prove. However, Russ pulled a smart move and requested statutory damages and waived his actual damages. That means Null is liable for 300k (if Russ can prove that Null willfully infringed)
View attachment 5419907
View attachment 5419908
View attachment 5419905

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Oh... I don't know about you... but I think Josh is gonna need to sell a few more T-shirts to pay back 300k. Holy fuck.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The fact that the 10th circuit has accepted the facts alleged as true, based solely upon the publication within the cited news articles may actually be a blessing in disguise. This makes the defamatory statements in the WaPo, NYTimes, etc as provably damaging, because they were provably damaging before a Federal Court and held to be legally actionable. Everything said about the forum, as cited in this case has been declared Prima Facie true, and the truth of the statements used to render adverse judgement.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

but I think Josh is gonna need to sell a few more T-shirts to pay back 300k.

I don't think the district judge would agree that he willfully infringed. If it gets to a jury, though...I'm not confident enough to make predictions about that.

The fact that the 10th circuit has accepted the facts alleged as true, based solely upon the publication within the cited news articles may actually be a blessing in disguise.

They literally have to accept it as true.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I don't think the district judge would agree that he willfully infringed. If it gets to a jury, though...I'm not confident enough to make predictions about that.

View attachment 5419972
They literally have to accept it as true.

Who knows. Hell, several youtubers did a "lets read" of Greers book in order to mock it. Was that "willfull infringement" too? IMO the reason why Greers "best friends" are in this case is so they can gut the "fair use doctrine" in Copyright Law. I would not trust the judge in this case either, all things being equal, to not tuck tail in the face of what is clear institutional pressure on the courts. The only way to give him pause is if Null actually carries out the "crossing the rubicon" and fires all the guns.

Simply put the current legal dynamic is no longer tenable, as this lawsuit has shown. The Kiwifarms has been so successfully defamed the defamation is now being cited by appellate judges. as justification for a lazy "fuck you" ruling that simply cites the cases every law student is forced to read in intro to copyright. Either the lies are challenged forcefully, or this place is going to get buried. Simple as that.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I don't think the district judge would agree that he willfully infringed. If it gets to a jury, though...I'm not confident enough to make predictions about that.

I'm saying it now, we are hated. A 10th circuit judge is a better alternative than a normie jury bench wading through the sludge of a internet forum.

View attachment 5419972
They literally have to accept it as true.

Not my bit, but can Josh have a chance to prove that it's false?

 

[ye's Official KF Burner]

Russell, nobody loves you and women only look at you when you pay them to, and you will never be important. Stay mad, die mad. You will only be surrounded by your mistakes when the time comes for you, and you will remain sexless.

Because it's on the internet the court must uphold this as truth.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Not my bit, but can Josh have a chance to prove that it's false?

He has to sue the originators of the defamation Greer cited,. and then immediately request a Stay in Proceedings pending the outcome of his defamation lawsuit against the sources of Greer's claims.

Since the remand is dependent on the defamation, if the Defamation is challenged the Remand is by default challenged pending outcome.

 

[Drowningman]

Who wants to bet Russ is spending money he thinks he won at the whorehouse tonight?

 

[Vesperus]

They literally have to accept it as true.

Niggers have got the Chewbacca Defense as Precedent?

Everything about this is retarded.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

The Kiwifarms has been so successfully defamed the defamation is now being cited by appellate judges. as justification for a lazy "fuck you" ruling that simply cites the cases every law student is forced to read in intro to copyright. Either the lies are challenged forcefully, or this place is going to get buried. Simple as that.

If he used your legal theory he would not only get laughed out of the court room, but he would get sanctioned, and his lawyer disbarred. I mean, what the fuck is your legal theory? "Here you can see the Judges following the relevant caselaw, and that is bad for me, and therefore I win defamation against NYT, thank you very much".

Just sue for defamation. Your addition 100% sinks any case it gets attached to.

but can Josh have a chance to prove that it's false?

If relevant, at trial. If not, in a defamation case. And still, if anyone sued him and put those words in, when considering Null's motion to dismiss, they'd still have to accept those facts as true.

Who wants to bet Russ is spending money he thinks he won at the whorehouse tonight?

Haven't they banned him?

Niggers have got the Chewbacca Defense as Precedent?
View attachment 5420006
Everything about this is retarded.

Two completely different things

 

[WelperHelper99]

He has to sue the originators of the defamation Greer cited,. and then immediately request a Stay in Proceedings pending the outcome of his defamation lawsuit against the sources of Greer's claims.

I mean... he's bankrupt if he loses. It seems we're at a dead end with one way out. I'd say fuck it. Let's actually find out IF Byuu is really fucking dead. Either that or financial heat death.

 

[The Great Citracett]

Who wants to bet Russ is spending money he thinks he won at the whorehouse tonight?

He's probably at a payday loan place waving around that document screaming how it's legal proof he'll be a millionaire next week so just give him that damn hooker money now now NOW!

 

[mindlessobserver]

If he used your legal theory he would not only get laughed out of the court room, but he would get sanctioned, and his lawyer disbarred. I mean, what the fuck is your legal theory? "Here you can see the Judges following the relevant caselaw, and that is bad for me, and therefore I win defamation against NYT, thank you very much".

Just sue for defamation. Your addition 100% sinks any case it gets attached to.

First off. Fuck you, have you said your Hail Mary's for Hroza yet?

Second of all, the legal theory is based on damages. The biggest issue Null has had with respect to defamation is the damages. How can he prove actual monetary cost based upon the damages? Any sort of defamation case against anyone spouting shit about the kiwifarms. The 10th circuit said the following.

When reviewing a granted motion to dismiss, we draw the background from the complaint, accepting the facts alleged within as true.

This is the provable damages. Adverse outcome in court. At an appellate court in fact. Its not something that is ethereal. Its very quantifiable. And it is clearly damage. More broadly, the Court has affirmed that everything is Greers "Background" is accepted as True, thus, the basis of their ruling. If the entire BACKGROUND of Greer's lawsuit is challenged, then the entire justification for the reversal is challenged. Why on earth would you think a Lawyer would be "disbarred' for making such an obvious conclusion? At a minimum the Judge would just go "No U" and proceed apace.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

He's probably at a payday loan place waving around that document screaming how it's legal proof he'll be a millionaire next week so just give him that damn hooker money now now NOW!

300k-lionnare, but I'm sure they are impressed all the same

This is the provable damages.

This is retarded. Judge following case law is not damages. The shooting is mentioned like once. I respect that many of us believe that it could have (or did) influence the judges' decision, but that is not evident in their Opinion. If you introduce that in your lawsuit, best case scenario is that the judge grants a motion to strike.

That said, I do not mean to derail the thread, and I will stop this discussion here.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

This remand is insane because its not based on the facts, its based on that Josh is a meanie poopoo pants who owns a very evil website.

 

[Sheryl Nome]

First off. Fuck you, have you said your Hail Mary's for Hroza yet?

Second of all, the legal theory is based on damages. The biggest issue Null has had with respect to defamation is the damages. How can he prove actual monetary cost based upon the damages? Any sort of defamation case against anyone spouting shit about the kiwifarms. The 10th circuit said the following.

When reviewing a granted motion to dismiss, we draw the background from the complaint, accepting the facts alleged within as true.

This is the provable damages. Adverse outcome in court. At an appellate court in fact. Its not something that is ethereal. Its very quantifiable. And it is clearly damage. More broadly, the Court has affirmed that everything is Greers "Background" is accepted as True, thus, the basis of their ruling. If the entire BACKGROUND of Greer's lawsuit is challenged, then the entire justification for the reversal is challenged. Why on earth would you think a Lawyer would be "disbarred' for making such an obvious conclusion? At a minimum the Judge would just go "No U" and proceed apace.

Please stop talking about legal shit like this aaa, the only have to accept relevant facts as true, things like 'Jersh made a troon commit suicide' are not relevant facts to the lawsuit and should be disregarded.