He may well have filed them. I'm sure bar associations get frivolous complaints from from vexatious litigants or just plain crazies all time. For all we know, the bar association got a complaint about Guinasso's anti-sex-trafficking efforts being discrimination against the disabled by taking away the only avenue for poor disabled folks like Greer to feel love (which is totally a fundamental human right, per the UN).
However, if they did receive any such complaint, their response was probably, "Lol. Lamao, even."
I don't know if Rackets is a good source for anything, but he swore up and down that bar complaints were basically ignored unless you were literally stealing money from clients or threatening the legal occupation as a whole.
He was able to download the files ...
From Google Drive ... Not from the farms.
Because he should be suing Google, but doesn't want to, because this has never been about copyright, it's about how sometimes you see a whore in the wild that he's trying to chat up and someone replies, "that's Russel Greer, he's a well known internet stalker who harasses sex workers 24x7, he has a thread on Kiwi Farms here, he tried to sue Taylor Swift because she wouldn't go on a date with him." And he doesn't want people doing that, as it scares the gullible whores away before he can get within arm's reach.
Can Null sue Mother Jones for this article? Greer brings it up in every fucking motion and nowhere has anyone ever pointed out where the Kiwifarms kill count was.
View attachment 7357167
In general it's just ridiculous how many bullshit articles that Greer puts in his filings as though they're absolute truth when they have absolutely no sources cause they're written by journoscum.
Even if you take that bullshit at face value -- it's a damned shame no one on the right has any gumption to write similar defense articles pushing back against the activist journalists on the left -- what does having a "kill count" have to do with copyright, Gimpface?
"This website is horrible!" Yeah? And? Who the fuck cares if you don't like it? You're claiming the site owner violated copyright because two pseudoanonymous users linked to files that Gimpface himself made publicly available via Kindle's "free sample" program. That's the only thing in question at this trial, Gimpface. Crying yet again, for the 5th year in a row, at how darn evil the evil site of evil is because they keep providing evidence of
THE THINGS YOU HAVE SAID AND DONE, GIMPFACE, is not a compelling reason to silence Null and the hundreds of thousands of users of the site. It has nothing to do with the copyright violations.