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

[Drowningman]

On the IG front, he isn't bragging about this to his favorite thots even though I suspect he sent a few a dm with links which they automatically ignored or go into a spam box

To the doomsayers if a drug addiction troon couldn't eradicate the Farms no way a drooling sex pest with a stalking conviction will.

It is very high probability that those 2 lawyers are done with Russ so in court it will be Lawyer Russ and we know how that turns out.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

To the doomsayers if a drug addiction troon couldn't eradicate the Farms no way a drooling sex pest with a stalking conviction will.

I agree. It just disturbs me how people are able and willing to destroy our right to free speech just to topple a fruit forum. You'd think this would be bigger news, but it's not.

And yes, Russell, freedom of speech necessarily includes mockery. If you cannot mock a taboo subject, you have no free speech.

 

[Otis Mallebrok]

Well, time to buy a shirt everyone.
Null's probably going to need a lot of money to fight this.

Let's ask Taylor Swift for a donation. We and her have a common enemy

 

[ScooterL]

Let's ask Taylor Swift for a donation. We and her have a common enemy

But, to be an enemy, she'd have to have the first clue who Russell Greer is. He's just one more drip in a sea of wannabe stalkers.

 

[autosarcophagy]

torrentfreak has article about the lawsuit Kiwi Farms’ Copyright Battle Could Spell Bad News for DMCA Transparency

 

[Debbie Macomber]

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.

So if Russell said "Null saws babies heads off every Sunday" the judges would be required to accept it as true and say "The case is reopened on account of Null saws babies heads off every sunday!"

 

[autosarcophagy]

null should send this guy email wikepedia does get used everywhere.Think Kiwi Farms Is Legally Unassailable? Copyright Law Might Disagree–Greer v. Moon

 

[Useful_Mistake]

So if Russell said "Null saws babies heads off every Sunday" the judges would be required to accept it as true and say "The case is reopened on a account of Null saws babies heads off every sunday!"

For the purposes of motion to dismiss, the judge treats facts alleged by the Plaintiff as true. See, for example, this quote from the 10th circuit, “judge ruling on a motion to dismiss must accept all allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven” (Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008), however Russ cannot just say “Null committed Contributory Copyright Infringement, so I earn 300k”, as “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice [to survive a motion to dismiss]” (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 837 (2009)).

Nothing however stops the court from dismissing the complaint if it is frivolous (“if the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless,' a category encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 'delusional.' As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible” - McEntire v. Federated Inv. Mgmt., 510 F. App'x 792 (10th Cir. 2013)) or if it "is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged". See Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2001).

 

[ForTheHoard]

For the purposes of motion to dismiss, the judge treats facts alleged by the Plaintiff as true. See, for example, this quote from the 10th circuit, “judge ruling on a motion to dismiss must accept all allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven” (Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008), however Russ cannot just say “Null committed Contributory Copyright Infringement, so I earn 300k”, as “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice [to survive a motion to dismiss]” (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868, 73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 837 (2009)).

Nothing however stops the court from dismissing the complaint if it is frivolous (“if the facts alleged are 'clearly baseless,' a category encompassing allegations that are 'fanciful,' 'fantastic,' and 'delusional.' As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible” - McEntire v. Federated Inv. Mgmt., 510 F. App'x 792 (10th Cir. 2013)) or if it "is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged". See Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2001).

Do they consider the relevancy of the facts? Like how posting legal paperwork and mocking/suicides of uninvolved parties has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

If the judge has to treat the Plantiff's statement of facts as true, is there any penalty for making false statements? I would assume that comes down to proving intent, or if a reasonable normie would believe those statements based on libelous news articles.

 

[Susie Vass]

View attachment 5419586

Anyway, here's where the Appeals court disagreed with the district court,
View attachment 5419599
I'm not sure this reasoning would survive without "drawing all reasonable inference in Mr. Greer's favor".

That's not saying any of that is true. It's saying that, if true, the case maintains plausible merit.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

is there any penalty for making false statements?

Knowingly lying to a government is a federal felony. There’s also civil punishments the courts can issue.

Do they consider the relevancy of the facts? Like how posting legal paperwork and mocking/suicides of uninvolved parties has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

In proposed amendments or memorandums they do, and in motions to strike (however they are disfavored and somewhat of a rare remedy. See, for example,Won-Door Corp. v. Cornell Iron Works, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00499 (D. Utah Oct. 5, 2015)) as well.

 

[Cheesegirl78]

Just wanted to express my thanks to Useful_Mistake and the other legal folks here for explaining what's going on.
I know nothing about the law and it's nice to have the case laid out so I can understand it.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The best approach at this point is "just the facts".

In proposed amendments or memorandums they do, and in motions to strike (however they are disfavored and somewhat of a rare remedy. See, for example,Won-Door Corp. v. Cornell Iron Works, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00499 (D. Utah Oct. 5, 2015)) as well.

Disfavored but not explicitly barred. We need to remember that the origination of this case was Greer getting drunk and writing a multi page screed and marching the results down to the Federal Court House. The adults in the room showed up to save his case after it was dismissed. But they still must carry the burden of the initial pleading, which is where we are back too.

I think motions to strike are warranted here, because the "Byuucide", the "Total Tranny Death", and "Null is a total meany poopie head revealing ""personal"" legal correspondence" are unrelated to the actual nexus of the claim. Does Kiwifarms have a Fair Use Exception to Greers work? My concern is this case is political as much as it is technical, and we are now getting noticed by fucking Stanford Law. There is not a single Federal Judge that is not aware of the political implications of their decisions, even if they try and avoid revealing them in their decisions. The best way to not run afoul of this is to be as technical and as boring as possible.

The truth is in the thread. Were the people sharing the material doing so for economic means? Or were they doing it to make fun of Greer for his shitty book. Its clearly the latter, and thanks to Sargon of Akkad there is a Federal Case wherein unredacted publication in full of a copyrighted work, if done explicitly for the purposes of ridicule is protected speech. This may not (and probably won't) rise to the level of summary dismissal though. Not after an appellate smackdown. But it will be a good way to strip all the politics out of the case and distill it down to the root cause of action. Which can then be far more easily dismissed at best, or at worst defeated at trial.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Disfavored but not explicitly barred

That is indeed true, and this might be the sort of case these Motions are made for. Like I mentioned, the Judge didn’t like Russ trying to saturate the docket with our alleged crimes. So, I feel like the Judge wouldn’t be immediately adverse to such a motion, which in itself is good.

are unrelated to the actual nexus of the claim

See, I could see the relevence, Russ was just a retard and didn’t plead it (possibly because it hadn’t occurred to him)

It would be relevant from a perspective of trying to prove that intentionally causing harm to people is our motif. If well pleaded it could have helped establish intentionality. But he didn’t even try to do that, leaving it all seemingly pointless. Weirder still, his appellate lawyers didn’t try to do that either, and that’s besides the fact that they were not adverse to raising new legal theories on appeal.

As is, I agree with you, it is completely unrelated. Now is a really interesting question, what if Russ filed for permission to amend in the linkage (if he was smart enough to make use of his bullshit) after the filing of motion to strike?

 

[mindlessobserver]

As is, I agree with you, it is completely unrelated. Now is a really interesting question, what if Russ filed for permission to amend in the linkage (if he was smart enough to make use of his bullshit) after the filing of motion to strike?

Sure, but what realistically could an amended petition provide? Would Greers new pro-bono totally charitable copyright lawyers want to try and introduce new causes of action? Or would they rather try and clean up the mess of the initial pleading? If they did the latter it would be the same result as a motion to strike. Much of Greers initial filing hints at possible claims, but he never explicitly states them as required, or reference the appropriate statute. Which you HAVE to do. How exactly does the Kiwifarms causing THREE SUICIDES OMG affect GREER. It "Can" I suppose, but he hasn't precisely explained why. I might be mad about alot of things that happen to people, but I can't just run to court and sue on their behalf as a private citizen.

This is worse then prejudicial. Its irrelevant. Its like me suing Phillip Morris for giving me cancer from their cigarettes', while also arguing that the labor practices of their independent contractors in Africa are shit.

 

[Beavis]

Send null money

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Sure, but what realistically could an amended petition provide?

The link between his pointless background about alleged KF suicides and his causes of action.

Would Greers new pro-bono totally charitable copyright lawyers want to try and introduce new causes of action?

We don't even know if they are representing him on the district level. It's entirely possible that they had only agreed to represent him on the appellate level. That said, it wouldn't be a new cause of action. See this:

It would be relevant from a perspective of trying to prove that intentionally causing harm to people is our motif. If well pleaded it could have helped establish intentionality.

As is the intentionality part of his claim is nonexistent without some absurd interpretations of "transparency equals intentional infringement". Can one amend a background, though? I'm unsure. Acerthorn's cases found that he couldn't, but that was background that directly linked to the issues that causes the lawsuit, as opposed to here where the background is far less directly relevant.

It "Can" I suppose, but he hasn't precisely explained why.

And that's the problem for him. Personally, I think he never even intended for it to matter, it was just an attempt to bias the court.

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

When Null wins the case, will he be able to get fees from Greer? I'm down to take a trip to repossess everything he owns if so.

Null doesn't want his collection of drool rags

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I just had an epiphany in another thread discussing this. Null is being punished retroactively. He is being punished for alleged encouraging of crimes that happened BEFORE his encouragement.

Weirdly, the appellate court seemed to draw the conclusion backwards: There was infringement -> Russ sent an email -> Null posted the email -> there was additional infringement -> Russ sent DMCA -> Null posted it and mocked it -> Null knew that his audience hated Greer -> therefore Null is responsible retroactively for infringement that happened before his supposed encouragement. Both Russ and the Appellate court assert that there have been additional infringements since the DMCA, but it was for things not at issue here, meaning that the infringement applied retroactively


Interestingly, this seems to favor the theory that because the infringement happened, it must have been induced, a doctrine of thought that has long since been denied in other Free Speech areas (like incitement)

 

[Vinluv Handesbukia]

Greer v Stebbins once in court (they both claim defamation/harassment/etc.. of the other) once bare knuckle who wins?