I just re-read his amended complaint (thank you,
@Third World Aristocrat, for linking those again!). Did we sort out why there is a John Doe #5 referenced a few times? Just bad editing bc he originally had 5? And wtf are Exhibits V and W? Phrase search brought up only the exhibits, and they say nothing relevant. I may be forgetting already-solved mysteries. I think (?) those were also in the original complaint, but if so, why not remove them now that you have the chance, and if not what are they doing here? (Rhetorical.).
And I'm not going to go through his headache- and exasperation-inducing tortured logic super-closely rn bc I don't want either of those things, but I really need to laugh/whine about how his screenshots/ exhibits are always so bad, so pointless, and reveal so much. I can't bear to go through all of them, but:
You've got the one in Exhibit V (again, not referenced in the amended complaint that I could find*) that shows his suggested connections at the bottom - all working girls or those with the look. Irrelevant, but funny.
*
I'm on my iPhone
6
Then there's Exhibit D, where he makes a point to circle an assertion HE's making as support for his own arguments. And when you read his whole comment (not just the circled part) and the cut-off start to the other person's response, it's clear he's in an argument and per usual has been accused of something that he is absolutely in the wrong for.
Exhibit G, like many, doesn't support its paragraph. Putting aside that the whole point of the paragraph is irrelevant to a copyright infringement suit, it's a great example of his inability to connect dots or support the smallest point. The text says,
Also, the trolls screenshot everything Greer does and put it on the site, which encourages the users to harass Greer. And because harassers have linked Kiwi Farms to the harassment. EXHIBIT G.
Exhibit G is a picture of a bag with a tag saying, "you're a dirtbag." Again, irrelevant, but even if it were relevant, it doesn't work: he's meaning (it appears) to say that [he thinks] he got a prank "gift" from a KF user, but he doesn't say so in this paragraph, and nowhere is there support for that actually coming from a KF user, rather than from anyone else he has ever crossed paths with or who encountered him irl, on any other site, through his book, through his other lawsuits, or just through reading his many and varied SM posts. Or from his family or a prior "victim" [
sic] of his harassment.
And then there's A3 (not, similarly to several others, referenced in the complaint) where he includes (again) his own accusations as evidence of wrongdoing - this time trying to get sassy with someone who panned his book, putting their name in quotes in his epic clapback to them, as evidence of (presumably KF) trolls rating him poorly on Goodreads. But the funniest part is his circling the fact that the man...actually has 6 other reviews - aka not a random username created to troll Russell.
Exhibit C is not referenced but I guess is supposed to be support for paragraph 24 - but the usernames in the Exhibit don't align to those in the paragraph, so wtf knows.
Exhibit O, a Goodreads partial screenshot with a link to a Bandcamp recording, is supposed to support the point that
Other users on Kiwi Farms have created unauthorized audio recordings of Greer’s books and have put them on various sites. One infringer used the hashtag, “Spaz Face” as a direct, discriminatory insult against Greer. Kiwi Farms has links to these audio recordings. EXHIBIT O.
Putting aside that, again, no evidence that either image shows that the users are KF users, does anyone see"Spaz Face" in either the Lionel Spanner Goodreads image or the "read by Steve Macdonald" image of a page? Or see a hashtag? Or see a KF image
in that Exhibit? Because I don't, and Russell's filings make me feel crazy.
Speaking of, Russell should compensate me for the frown lines reading his filings is deepening. Or fuck that, I want eggshell damages for any signs of age (nevermind the fact of time itself or the fact that I am currently sitting outside in the sun without wearing SPF or sunglasses, etc.), plus punitive damages for his egregious and obviously malicious intentions. My iron-clad evidence will be his sex-pest behavior toward young women my children's age, and I will screenshot this comment to prove it. I will also add a hate crime in my civil suit, because obviously. I will bring suit in my state, because Russell knew that filings are available on PACER, which is available everywhere. I also have a lot of (alive, currently, probably) eager witnesses who can attest I have been on the internet, and my parents can prove I looked younger as a child. Plus, I receive many, many solicitations by email for anti-aging treatments, which obviously come from Russell. I will screenshot my junk mail list (and n.b., the Viagra treatment promotions are obviously pranks by him, because I am not male....hmm, sounds to me like another harassment hate crime...my plights are legion).
...
I just never stop being astounded at how Russell is so consistently dumb and wrong...and just bad at evidence (and I don't even mean legal evidence, but rather just "how do I support my point" in an everyday way).
I did better than that when
"I'm
6"
was literally true. (
Dorothy was an argumentative little Parker**, and my parents enjoyed the humiliation ritual of taping me on occasion, so I know. But even non-argumentative 6-year-olds intuitively know how to point to things that actually help their case. A 6yo (A) does not tattle on a sibling (B) for hitting A and then prove the accusation by recounting that A shoved a neighbor kid (G) to the ground last week and shouted that A was doing so because next week B would hit A.
No one thinks like that.)
**tosh! People just needed to agree that I was right and they were wrong see what was correct, and if it took a 72-point lecture harangue educative explanation, was it not my tiny human obligation to provide? 
And it will never not be funny (para. 25) that he cites his notoriety resulting
from a "publicity stunt" (suing Taylor Swift) - being recognized as the person who sued Taylor Swift or yelled at from cars in person - as evidence of harassment, either in general or by KF users (he hard-fuzzes that, as usual).
7
