- Joined
- Jul 24, 2017
Beautiful...just beautiful.
You are THE MVP. Seriously.
I wonder if he hasn't activated FB again because of the above.
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
- Thread starter Cryin RN
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Beautiful...just beautiful.
You are THE MVP. Seriously.
I wonder if he hasn't activated FB again because of the above.
sharshorita
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
J: Mr. Greer?
R: Ah, yeah.
J: Come on up here. Court started 35 minutes ago. Raise your right hand and be sworn in.
::do you solemnly affirm … etc… under the pains and penalties of perjury?::
R: Yes I do.
J: Take a seat at one of the tables Mr. Greer. May I inquire Mr. Greer about your tardiness today?
R: I thought it was at 2 o’clock.
J: Why would you think that?
R: Um… ::unzipping bag:: I must have misread my calendar wrong. I have, if I could show you my phone...
J: I’m not going to look at your phone, and I don’t really care what’s in your phone. I’m looking at a small claims affidavit and summons. That was completed by you, correct?
R: Ah yes, sir.
J: It states pretty clearly on August 2nd, 2017 at 1:30pm is when we were going to be having our hearing. We’ve had individuals here, witnesses here, attorneys here, a whole court staff here waiting for you. If the case says it’s going to be here at 1:30 make sure you’re here at 1:30.
R: And I sincerely apologize.
J: Alright, I’ve already … We already made a ruling on your case, but I’ve now stricken that ruling since I was told by our kind staff that you had just walked in. I have read through your affidavit and summons, and as you are aware a motion to dismiss your case has been filed. It was so filed back on June 30th of this year. You’re aware of that?
R: Uh, yeah, uh huh.
J: OK. Saw no response from you. Mr. Skordas, before I go into any merits of this case, why don’t you discuss with the court the reasoning and the tenants behind your motion to dismiss please.
S: Your honor the complaint here doesn’t state a claim for relief that this court can grant, even if you believe anything this man says, which I think would be very difficult, there’s nothing that would establish a cause of action here, and furthermore there’s no jurisdiction, both with respect to persons or to cause. It appears that he went to some sort of concert and felt that he was somehow neglected by one our clients. I don’t know how he gets any jurisdiction whatsoever with respect to the other, her agent. ::some legalese I didn’t understand.:: I think this case was filed in bad faith. It’s a pattern with this gentleman. We were here some time ago on another case involving another performer. That judge made fairly quick order of this. I know that that’s wasting your time by raising this, but I do want the court to know that this man has a habit of bringing inappropriate and bad faith actions before this court, and there’s nothing in his complaint that would support a cause of action.
J: Very good. Obviously a bad faith claim has a couple of elements. Number one as I recall, is it being not meritorious, and one without any grounds or jurisdiction. I draw from testimony of your client that both of those are present in this case?
S: Yes, your honor.
J: And have your clients incurred attorney’s fees and other costs because of this lawsuit, and would you be requesting an award for attorney’s fees because of that?
S: Yes your honor.
J: Thank you very much. Mr. Greer would you like to respond to Mr. Skordas’s and the defendants’ request to the court to dismiss the cases you brought? Prior to that Mr. Greer, I’d like to address something with you. I’ve read through your documentation. I’ve gone through the defendants’ documents. I’ve also been made aware of certain other comments, social media comments, other things of that nature directed at various individuals. I’m going to give you an opportunity to explain some of those comments made very recently to me before I take any action on those. This isn’t about the case, this isn’t about a concert, this isn’t about songs, this isn’t about anything. This is about social media content, threats, electronic communications, harassment, other types of improper, inappropriate, quite illegal activity, and prior to me making commentary or acting on that, I’d like to hear what you may have to say in defense of some of the things that I have seen, some of the things I have read.
R: I would like to say that I have… A lot of stuff I post online is sarcastic.
J: Sarcastic? Like you joking around?
R: To be honest, I’m not sure which comments you’re talking about.
J: Do you want me to read some of them?
R: I mean, I’m not really sure…
J: OK. Did you mean “this I promise you, there will be blood” … sarcastically?
R: So, that’s the name of a movie, There Will Be Blood. So I was joking around with that, and I post trolly stuff on my Facebook…
J: Do you understand that when a stream of discussions are occurring regarding a problem with another individual that may make it to a court setting with judges and bailiffs and clerks and members of society, that when someone says something to the effect of “I promise you there will be blood” that that might be taken more seriously than the title of a movie? Might you understand that?
R: Yeah, but that was never part of my… you know I never really associated that with my court case. I say stupid stuff, and I have talked to several people…
J: Hang on. I’m reading, “So here’s the updated docket of the case. This I promise you, there will be blood.” You aren’t associating this with the case at all?
R: I wasn’t associating it with any threat whatsoever. I was saying something stupid. I’ve been trolly. I have over 1000 followers.
J: I don’t care, sir. I don’t care how many followers you have. Maybe that makes your crime worse.
R: Sir..
J: Understand, that is improper, that is illegal. If anything, it’s electronic communications harassment. It might be misdemeanor stalking, OK? That’s when people get arrested in court for making those kind of comments. You understand that?
R: I feel so stupid. I didn’t really mean that.
J: OK, I’m not here to make you feel stupid or make you feel any way. Well, maybe I am. Not in this courtroom, not in this courthouse, and my advice would be not in any. OK? Because these gentlemen don’t take that lightly, OK? Because if there’s going to be something that happens, they don’t take that very lightly at all. So you might want to watch… Facebook might be fun, it might be sarcastic, hee hee.. We take this stuff seriously. When people bring this stuff to our attention and we have to have certain people here, that’s something you should take very seriously, or you might be spending the weekend in a cement room. Why shouldn’t I dismiss this case based on the discussion that Mr. Skordas and I just had about jurisdiction, not only subject matter jurisdiction, but personal jurisdiction, and for a cause of action or a claim that I can’t really put my finger down on? Why should the court not dismiss this and maybe even find it being filed in bad faith and awarding fees?
R: I filed it in good faith.
J: I understand that. Good faith or bad faith is a legal term. It’s not a subjective.. . It’s not something in your mind that “Hey, I think this is good faith, I’m going to do it.” The law has a certain criteria whether something is bad faith or good faith. Bad faith means it’s done with ulterior purposes. It’s not done with any merit, and that the person who brings that case knows or should know of that. So tell me what meritorious purpose this lawsuit has to be filed in this court today.
R: Ah, yeah.
J: Come on up here. Court started 35 minutes ago. Raise your right hand and be sworn in.
::do you solemnly affirm … etc… under the pains and penalties of perjury?::
R: Yes I do.
J: Take a seat at one of the tables Mr. Greer. May I inquire Mr. Greer about your tardiness today?
R: I thought it was at 2 o’clock.
J: Why would you think that?
R: Um… ::unzipping bag:: I must have misread my calendar wrong. I have, if I could show you my phone...
J: I’m not going to look at your phone, and I don’t really care what’s in your phone. I’m looking at a small claims affidavit and summons. That was completed by you, correct?
R: Ah yes, sir.
J: It states pretty clearly on August 2nd, 2017 at 1:30pm is when we were going to be having our hearing. We’ve had individuals here, witnesses here, attorneys here, a whole court staff here waiting for you. If the case says it’s going to be here at 1:30 make sure you’re here at 1:30.
R: And I sincerely apologize.
J: Alright, I’ve already … We already made a ruling on your case, but I’ve now stricken that ruling since I was told by our kind staff that you had just walked in. I have read through your affidavit and summons, and as you are aware a motion to dismiss your case has been filed. It was so filed back on June 30th of this year. You’re aware of that?
R: Uh, yeah, uh huh.
J: OK. Saw no response from you. Mr. Skordas, before I go into any merits of this case, why don’t you discuss with the court the reasoning and the tenants behind your motion to dismiss please.
S: Your honor the complaint here doesn’t state a claim for relief that this court can grant, even if you believe anything this man says, which I think would be very difficult, there’s nothing that would establish a cause of action here, and furthermore there’s no jurisdiction, both with respect to persons or to cause. It appears that he went to some sort of concert and felt that he was somehow neglected by one our clients. I don’t know how he gets any jurisdiction whatsoever with respect to the other, her agent. ::some legalese I didn’t understand.:: I think this case was filed in bad faith. It’s a pattern with this gentleman. We were here some time ago on another case involving another performer. That judge made fairly quick order of this. I know that that’s wasting your time by raising this, but I do want the court to know that this man has a habit of bringing inappropriate and bad faith actions before this court, and there’s nothing in his complaint that would support a cause of action.
J: Very good. Obviously a bad faith claim has a couple of elements. Number one as I recall, is it being not meritorious, and one without any grounds or jurisdiction. I draw from testimony of your client that both of those are present in this case?
S: Yes, your honor.
J: And have your clients incurred attorney’s fees and other costs because of this lawsuit, and would you be requesting an award for attorney’s fees because of that?
S: Yes your honor.
J: Thank you very much. Mr. Greer would you like to respond to Mr. Skordas’s and the defendants’ request to the court to dismiss the cases you brought? Prior to that Mr. Greer, I’d like to address something with you. I’ve read through your documentation. I’ve gone through the defendants’ documents. I’ve also been made aware of certain other comments, social media comments, other things of that nature directed at various individuals. I’m going to give you an opportunity to explain some of those comments made very recently to me before I take any action on those. This isn’t about the case, this isn’t about a concert, this isn’t about songs, this isn’t about anything. This is about social media content, threats, electronic communications, harassment, other types of improper, inappropriate, quite illegal activity, and prior to me making commentary or acting on that, I’d like to hear what you may have to say in defense of some of the things that I have seen, some of the things I have read.
R: I would like to say that I have… A lot of stuff I post online is sarcastic.
J: Sarcastic? Like you joking around?
R: To be honest, I’m not sure which comments you’re talking about.
J: Do you want me to read some of them?
R: I mean, I’m not really sure…
J: OK. Did you mean “this I promise you, there will be blood” … sarcastically?
R: So, that’s the name of a movie, There Will Be Blood. So I was joking around with that, and I post trolly stuff on my Facebook…
J: Do you understand that when a stream of discussions are occurring regarding a problem with another individual that may make it to a court setting with judges and bailiffs and clerks and members of society, that when someone says something to the effect of “I promise you there will be blood” that that might be taken more seriously than the title of a movie? Might you understand that?
R: Yeah, but that was never part of my… you know I never really associated that with my court case. I say stupid stuff, and I have talked to several people…
J: Hang on. I’m reading, “So here’s the updated docket of the case. This I promise you, there will be blood.” You aren’t associating this with the case at all?
R: I wasn’t associating it with any threat whatsoever. I was saying something stupid. I’ve been trolly. I have over 1000 followers.
J: I don’t care, sir. I don’t care how many followers you have. Maybe that makes your crime worse.
R: Sir..
J: Understand, that is improper, that is illegal. If anything, it’s electronic communications harassment. It might be misdemeanor stalking, OK? That’s when people get arrested in court for making those kind of comments. You understand that?
R: I feel so stupid. I didn’t really mean that.
J: OK, I’m not here to make you feel stupid or make you feel any way. Well, maybe I am. Not in this courtroom, not in this courthouse, and my advice would be not in any. OK? Because these gentlemen don’t take that lightly, OK? Because if there’s going to be something that happens, they don’t take that very lightly at all. So you might want to watch… Facebook might be fun, it might be sarcastic, hee hee.. We take this stuff seriously. When people bring this stuff to our attention and we have to have certain people here, that’s something you should take very seriously, or you might be spending the weekend in a cement room. Why shouldn’t I dismiss this case based on the discussion that Mr. Skordas and I just had about jurisdiction, not only subject matter jurisdiction, but personal jurisdiction, and for a cause of action or a claim that I can’t really put my finger down on? Why should the court not dismiss this and maybe even find it being filed in bad faith and awarding fees?
R: I filed it in good faith.
J: I understand that. Good faith or bad faith is a legal term. It’s not a subjective.. . It’s not something in your mind that “Hey, I think this is good faith, I’m going to do it.” The law has a certain criteria whether something is bad faith or good faith. Bad faith means it’s done with ulterior purposes. It’s not done with any merit, and that the person who brings that case knows or should know of that. So tell me what meritorious purpose this lawsuit has to be filed in this court today.
Last edited:
nannylumps
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
@sharshorita I hope someone gives you a massage for your arms. They must be sore as hell from all that writing.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
Russ is taking so much of a verbal beating here that I'm picturing the judge in black leather.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
I have a feeling His Honor the Judge was looking forward to hearing Russhole make a fool of himself in court just to have a little entertainment and break up the boredom of the typical day in court. It also seems that he really wanted to give Rusty a dressing down over his conduct on social media, taking offense over Saggykins stalking and harassing people. Good for His Honor.
sharshorita
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
Sorry. Hopefully this can all be more clear after we get the official audio.
R: On March 21st, 2017, I went to a concert at the Energy Solutions Arena.
J: I’m going to stop you for one second. I’m going to listen to all that. But what I want to do is I’m going to ask you what cause of action, what thing happened. Causes of action are like assault, or like trespassing, or like negligence, or electronics communications harassment. Those are called causes of action, OK? So I want you to start with what cause of action do you think the defendants did to you, that then I’m going to listen to your facts to see if they match up at all with your cause of action. Because I can’t put my finger on a cause of action. I can’t put my finger on what law, what complaint you have that has some legal basis.
R: Negligence per se.
J: Negligence per se? Tell me what negligence per se means to you.
R: From what I have read in the court books, negligence per se is when a law that protects a group of people was violated by some conduct… ::missed turning page:: I was harassed, I was laughed at, I felt threatened for my life at a concert I paid $900 to $1000 to go to. It took… backstage at $500, the concert itself, $300, added to the cost of that, about $900..
J: OK, was this something that you believe happened purposefully?
R: Yes.
J: OK but negligence means it’s accidental. Negligence means someone had a duty to do something, they didn’t do something, accidentally, they cause some damage. So, like this morning, believe it or not, I wasn’t supposed to run into the car in front of me, literally, and luckily he had a ball thing at the back, but my car now has a hole about that big. I wasn’t supposed to do that. I didn’t mean to, but I had a duty not to. I breached my duty, I caused some damage. Now if I hurt his trailer hitch ball, I would have owed him some money, but I didn’t. So that’s an accidental thing. If you’re talking about someone purposely punched me, or I purposely ran into the back of my ex wife’s car, or something like that, then we have a problem. So I don’t know if you mean negligence then. You mean harassment?
R: So I say negligence on the part of Ariana your honor because they had a duty to make sure that people under them did not harass people with disabilities. I would cite a Utah state law that says a person with a disability has equal rights to advantages, places of amusement.
J: Certainly. So you’re stating that you were denied some of those equal access rights?
R: Yes sir. And I would say that under the ::He’s hard to understand sometimes::
I talked with general counsel…
J: I don’t care who you’ve talked to. If you want to bring up counsel or if you’re going to bring up the hearsay of discussing with attorneys then you should have brought an attorney with you. So either you make the statements on your own accord or don’t bring up other attorneys.
R: Actually I have the evidence right here, sir.
J: I’m not going to read through a booklet of Utah law, sir. I know the law that we’re talking about.
R: It’s an email I got from general counsel.
J: And I’m not going to read through the email that you received from another attorney. Let’s go to maybe, perhaps, a more dispositive issue sir.
J: I’m going to stop you for one second. I’m going to listen to all that. But what I want to do is I’m going to ask you what cause of action, what thing happened. Causes of action are like assault, or like trespassing, or like negligence, or electronics communications harassment. Those are called causes of action, OK? So I want you to start with what cause of action do you think the defendants did to you, that then I’m going to listen to your facts to see if they match up at all with your cause of action. Because I can’t put my finger on a cause of action. I can’t put my finger on what law, what complaint you have that has some legal basis.
R: Negligence per se.
J: Negligence per se? Tell me what negligence per se means to you.
R: From what I have read in the court books, negligence per se is when a law that protects a group of people was violated by some conduct… ::missed turning page:: I was harassed, I was laughed at, I felt threatened for my life at a concert I paid $900 to $1000 to go to. It took… backstage at $500, the concert itself, $300, added to the cost of that, about $900..
J: OK, was this something that you believe happened purposefully?
R: Yes.
J: OK but negligence means it’s accidental. Negligence means someone had a duty to do something, they didn’t do something, accidentally, they cause some damage. So, like this morning, believe it or not, I wasn’t supposed to run into the car in front of me, literally, and luckily he had a ball thing at the back, but my car now has a hole about that big. I wasn’t supposed to do that. I didn’t mean to, but I had a duty not to. I breached my duty, I caused some damage. Now if I hurt his trailer hitch ball, I would have owed him some money, but I didn’t. So that’s an accidental thing. If you’re talking about someone purposely punched me, or I purposely ran into the back of my ex wife’s car, or something like that, then we have a problem. So I don’t know if you mean negligence then. You mean harassment?
R: So I say negligence on the part of Ariana your honor because they had a duty to make sure that people under them did not harass people with disabilities. I would cite a Utah state law that says a person with a disability has equal rights to advantages, places of amusement.
J: Certainly. So you’re stating that you were denied some of those equal access rights?
R: Yes sir. And I would say that under the ::He’s hard to understand sometimes::
I talked with general counsel…
J: I don’t care who you’ve talked to. If you want to bring up counsel or if you’re going to bring up the hearsay of discussing with attorneys then you should have brought an attorney with you. So either you make the statements on your own accord or don’t bring up other attorneys.
R: Actually I have the evidence right here, sir.
J: I’m not going to read through a booklet of Utah law, sir. I know the law that we’re talking about.
R: It’s an email I got from general counsel.
J: And I’m not going to read through the email that you received from another attorney. Let’s go to maybe, perhaps, a more dispositive issue sir.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2014
Get the balls on this guy, assuming the judge doesn't know the law.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
His face gets enough heat around here for me to want to really pile onto it.
Plus:
I had a friend with Moebius Syndrome at the university I went to. He was a decent enough individual and was also a fairly big deal in the local stand-up comedy scene. He never really included his deformity in his act, which normally involved some of the most raunchy, disgusting, vile humor I've ever heard in my life. So I'm not about to hold this one moron's disability against him.
At least not in that previous post. I'll definately shit on him later for it.
At least not in that previous post. I'll definately shit on him later for it.
sharshorita
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
J: There’s something called jurisdiction. You can’t just sue someone anywhere you want. You have to have certain reasons to be able to sue them in certain places. There’s something called subject matter jurisdiction; there’s something called personal jurisdiction. Maybe to their names, one of them is about the subject itself. The other is about the person, or the defendants themselves. You need to explain to me why you believe Salt Lake City Justice Court has either personal or subject matter jurisdiction on this matter.
R: Absolutely. It has subject matter jurisdiction because the concert was held here. If I could use your car analogy, just because someone lives in Alaska, and hits your car, it doesn’t mean you can’t sue them because he lives in Alaska. Sir, I honestly looked at it, and it happened here. And it wouldn’t have made any sense… Because I don’t know where their addresses are, the defendants. I don’t know where they reside. I think in California, but I brought it in justice court because the harm happened here on March 21st, and that’s why I felt I had jurisdiction.
J: I understand sir that you are not an attorney, although it appears you are not a stranger to the litigation process. As you might well be aware, that is something that is noted. Certainly not dispositive, certainly not anything critical, but something that is noted when you have cases that are brought up on multiple occasions. I understand you’re not an attorney. I’m not sure what you do for a living, but I’m sure that I don’t do that. We’re all experts in what we know. There is far more about jurisdiction than it happened here. There are certain things regarding relationships to a state. There are certain things having to do with certain contacts certain defendants have to have with certain jurisdictions for that jurisdiction to have power to hear a case. Just because it happened here, whatever those allegations are, and this is not making a determination on those merits at all, for the moment at least… It’s far more about than because a concert was here that I went to. There needs to be both personal and subject matter jurisdiction that would allow this court to handle that case against these defendants. And I’ll give you one more opportunity if you have… And if you don’t know what those elements are then it might not be a real good investment of your time to attempt this. Perhaps, maybe, counsel should have been here with you. But you’ll need to identify why you believe this court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, very specifically, pursuant to Utah law. Just because the concert happened here does not grant criterion.
R: I’m sure you’re familiar with the long arm jurisdiction, the long arm statute. I’ve read through that, and it says minimum of conduct, minimum contact. Even for tourist conduct, it creates the minimum contact, and I’ve relied on that statute to file in this court. I could have easily, I don’t know, I guess I could have found out where they reside and filed it in their court, but then it really didn’t make too much sense since I was relying on the long arm statute.
J: Well, again, the long arm statue is a common law that is very old and has many, many additions and different factors to it. Sir, we’re talking about things of substantial activity, continuous activity. Allegations that would cause a defendant to believe that they might be pulled into a lawsuit in this state, not only because of the subject matter of the allegations, which, again I’m not really sure what the allegations are. I understand what you’ve said. I have not really narrowed that down very well. But also, to the people you’re suing themselves, in your documents, you need to make specific allegations and specific facts that would lend the court to determine that both personal and subject matter jurisdiction are proper in the case.
R: Absolutely. It has subject matter jurisdiction because the concert was held here. If I could use your car analogy, just because someone lives in Alaska, and hits your car, it doesn’t mean you can’t sue them because he lives in Alaska. Sir, I honestly looked at it, and it happened here. And it wouldn’t have made any sense… Because I don’t know where their addresses are, the defendants. I don’t know where they reside. I think in California, but I brought it in justice court because the harm happened here on March 21st, and that’s why I felt I had jurisdiction.
J: I understand sir that you are not an attorney, although it appears you are not a stranger to the litigation process. As you might well be aware, that is something that is noted. Certainly not dispositive, certainly not anything critical, but something that is noted when you have cases that are brought up on multiple occasions. I understand you’re not an attorney. I’m not sure what you do for a living, but I’m sure that I don’t do that. We’re all experts in what we know. There is far more about jurisdiction than it happened here. There are certain things regarding relationships to a state. There are certain things having to do with certain contacts certain defendants have to have with certain jurisdictions for that jurisdiction to have power to hear a case. Just because it happened here, whatever those allegations are, and this is not making a determination on those merits at all, for the moment at least… It’s far more about than because a concert was here that I went to. There needs to be both personal and subject matter jurisdiction that would allow this court to handle that case against these defendants. And I’ll give you one more opportunity if you have… And if you don’t know what those elements are then it might not be a real good investment of your time to attempt this. Perhaps, maybe, counsel should have been here with you. But you’ll need to identify why you believe this court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction, very specifically, pursuant to Utah law. Just because the concert happened here does not grant criterion.
R: I’m sure you’re familiar with the long arm jurisdiction, the long arm statute. I’ve read through that, and it says minimum of conduct, minimum contact. Even for tourist conduct, it creates the minimum contact, and I’ve relied on that statute to file in this court. I could have easily, I don’t know, I guess I could have found out where they reside and filed it in their court, but then it really didn’t make too much sense since I was relying on the long arm statute.
J: Well, again, the long arm statue is a common law that is very old and has many, many additions and different factors to it. Sir, we’re talking about things of substantial activity, continuous activity. Allegations that would cause a defendant to believe that they might be pulled into a lawsuit in this state, not only because of the subject matter of the allegations, which, again I’m not really sure what the allegations are. I understand what you’ve said. I have not really narrowed that down very well. But also, to the people you’re suing themselves, in your documents, you need to make specific allegations and specific facts that would lend the court to determine that both personal and subject matter jurisdiction are proper in the case.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
I love the fact that the judge vacated the decision made just so he could make it again in Grimly Greer's presence, along with taking the opportunity to deliver unto him something of a legal smackdown on multiple fronts: i.e. the claim itself, his social media activity and his general conduct underpinning everything surrounding the "case".
ln18
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2015
This is great stuff. I wonder when Russ will lose faith in the US legal system and go SovCit.
Fuck, I thought the 13th amendment made it illegal to own someone like this?
Lunachu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
Sharshorita you're an absolute legend for doing all this.
Zombiefaceddwarf
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 24, 2017
Russell isn't going to take this criticism of his legal knowledge by this know-nothing judge lightly.
As we speak he'll furiously be putting together a PowerPoint presentation explaining how the judge got it wrong, his lack of understanding of the law and his discrimination and prejudice towards Russ. He'll come back to fb with this presentation and also reveal his plans to escalate this to federal court.
Meanwhile, I wonder if his employer is aware of these actions of his employee, both in court yesterday as well as his various activities online which the judge classed as harassment and stalking, both illegal and highly damaging activities? Quite an embarrassment for the company, especially as Russell advertises on his fb profile that he's a GEICO employee. Rex Olson, the SLC insurance agent for GEICO seems like a stand up guy from his profile and is involved in a lot positive projects, chamber of commerce, boy scouts, etc. It doesn't serve his or the company's reputation any good to have this association with old saggy chops...
https://www.geico.com/insurance-agents/utah/salt-lake-city/rex-olson/
sharshorita
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
J: Now, as far as the failure to state a claim, what that means is we haven’t identified this cause of action that we’re talking about. You started with negligence per se, which I don’t really think that’s what you meant. You discussed some elements of negligence. You talked about harassment. You talked about some other activity that may have happened. Sir, I’m still failing to understand exactly what law you believe, that you’re relying on, or what common law, or what cause of action you believe occurred that would cause a court to rule in… to be honest, for a court to even continue with discussing a case. If a defendant doesn’t know or can’t identify, especially if a court doesn’t know or can’t identify, what are you complaining about? What law are you saying we did wrong? What common law practice do you believe we did wrong? It’s very difficult to be making those decisions. That’s why it’s incumbent upon the complainant to make very clear what their causes of action that they’re claiming are. So I’m going to give you one more opportunity to try to explain to me… Again, I don’t need facts. I don’t need that right now. I need to understand what you’re complaining about to see if the facts even go there. If I can’t figure out what that is, then Mr. Skordas’s motion about failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it’s going to be very difficult not to grant. So I’m going to give you one more opportunity, then I’m going to hear from Mr. Skordas. Please continue.
R: ::long pause, ums:: I’m trying to think of how to say it correctly. ::long pause:: So Ariana Grande held a concert here, and she is in charge of all of her staff…
J: Let me remind you, I didn’t ask you for any facts of this, and I’m not even going into all of that until I understand under what title you’re believing those facts violate. If you’re going to say negligence… Is that what you’re going to rely on? Negligence? That someone had a duty, they breached that duty and caused you some harm, and those actions caused negligence. Is that the cause of action you’re relying on?
R: Negligence and violation of Utah code.
J: OK and that Utah code is the right and access for any individuals with disabilities, equal access and right to services or locations as anyone else, correct?
R: Yeah, and it says equal rights to advantages, and that contains not to be harassed, not be threatened when you’re going to a concert that you paid for… ::missed a little:: And not feel threatened. I understand you don’t care about the general counsel, but I talked to him, the guy over the Vivint Home Arena. He said he had no other complaints of it. And he said that the people I encountered worked for Ariana Grande.
J: OK good. Then tell me about in what manner did you … what exact issues and fact occurred that made you feel threatened?
R: OK, absolutely.
J: Bullet points. Quick bullet points.
R: When I was at the Question and Answer, I was sitting in the third row. There were three guards looking right at me. They were laughing, and they were like, “Is he dumb or is he drunk?”
J: How did that make you feel threatened? Threatened means you feel you are going to be hurt, you’re going to be assaulted, you’re going to be in some way… How did you feel threatened by that if that indeed occurred?
R: They kept looking at me. They kept talking amongst themselves. They didn’t get too much closer to me, but I felt they were going to come over to me. And Ariana was sitting on the stage, and just going through her hearts, and I wanted to ask her a question. And I felt that if I stood up because I appear to be a certain way, that they would apprehend me because I look intoxicated or whatever. And that is the honest truth. Later on, at 10 o’clock at night, I was filming. I have the video on my phone. I was right next to the stage. The stage was like in the form of an i :: (or eye?) ::. So like far end, catwalk, and I was at the far end of the i. And I was filming and someone grabbed my shoulder, and he was like, “Where’s your seat at?” And I was trying to tell him that that was my area, and he turned me around, and finally the guards… So there was another guard standing in front of the stage. He said, “Look, this is the guy’s seat.” It was a very hurtful, threatening…
J: Someone asking you where your seat was and another person saying, “This is his seat,” that was hurtful and threatening to you?
R: Because he grabbed me, sir. I felt threatened. I was terrified. What made it worse is it was so loud. Like there was this random guy grabbing me, like, what did I do to you to grab me? And also, when I met Ariana Grande, I felt as if she looked down upon me. I had dressed in a suit. I had really nice hair. And I told her about her flowers.
J: What cause of action would you say that that would be violating? She had some duty to do something different than how you felt she was treating you?
R: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
J: Oh.
R: I felt that it was outrageous conduct to basically degrade someone who paid all that money. See, here’s the thing. I heard her interactions before I even met her. Like, she said to one guy, “Oh, you’re so handsome.” And just, nice to all these other people, and I walked in there, and I don’t know. I have evidence in my bag of medicine I take to help my depression. Honestly, do you want to know why I post such whacky stuff to my Facebook? Because I’ve been having a meltdown. It’s been going on. It just hurts.
R: ::long pause, ums:: I’m trying to think of how to say it correctly. ::long pause:: So Ariana Grande held a concert here, and she is in charge of all of her staff…
J: Let me remind you, I didn’t ask you for any facts of this, and I’m not even going into all of that until I understand under what title you’re believing those facts violate. If you’re going to say negligence… Is that what you’re going to rely on? Negligence? That someone had a duty, they breached that duty and caused you some harm, and those actions caused negligence. Is that the cause of action you’re relying on?
R: Negligence and violation of Utah code.
J: OK and that Utah code is the right and access for any individuals with disabilities, equal access and right to services or locations as anyone else, correct?
R: Yeah, and it says equal rights to advantages, and that contains not to be harassed, not be threatened when you’re going to a concert that you paid for… ::missed a little:: And not feel threatened. I understand you don’t care about the general counsel, but I talked to him, the guy over the Vivint Home Arena. He said he had no other complaints of it. And he said that the people I encountered worked for Ariana Grande.
J: OK good. Then tell me about in what manner did you … what exact issues and fact occurred that made you feel threatened?
R: OK, absolutely.
J: Bullet points. Quick bullet points.
R: When I was at the Question and Answer, I was sitting in the third row. There were three guards looking right at me. They were laughing, and they were like, “Is he dumb or is he drunk?”
J: How did that make you feel threatened? Threatened means you feel you are going to be hurt, you’re going to be assaulted, you’re going to be in some way… How did you feel threatened by that if that indeed occurred?
R: They kept looking at me. They kept talking amongst themselves. They didn’t get too much closer to me, but I felt they were going to come over to me. And Ariana was sitting on the stage, and just going through her hearts, and I wanted to ask her a question. And I felt that if I stood up because I appear to be a certain way, that they would apprehend me because I look intoxicated or whatever. And that is the honest truth. Later on, at 10 o’clock at night, I was filming. I have the video on my phone. I was right next to the stage. The stage was like in the form of an i :: (or eye?) ::. So like far end, catwalk, and I was at the far end of the i. And I was filming and someone grabbed my shoulder, and he was like, “Where’s your seat at?” And I was trying to tell him that that was my area, and he turned me around, and finally the guards… So there was another guard standing in front of the stage. He said, “Look, this is the guy’s seat.” It was a very hurtful, threatening…
J: Someone asking you where your seat was and another person saying, “This is his seat,” that was hurtful and threatening to you?
R: Because he grabbed me, sir. I felt threatened. I was terrified. What made it worse is it was so loud. Like there was this random guy grabbing me, like, what did I do to you to grab me? And also, when I met Ariana Grande, I felt as if she looked down upon me. I had dressed in a suit. I had really nice hair. And I told her about her flowers.
J: What cause of action would you say that that would be violating? She had some duty to do something different than how you felt she was treating you?
R: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
J: Oh.
R: I felt that it was outrageous conduct to basically degrade someone who paid all that money. See, here’s the thing. I heard her interactions before I even met her. Like, she said to one guy, “Oh, you’re so handsome.” And just, nice to all these other people, and I walked in there, and I don’t know. I have evidence in my bag of medicine I take to help my depression. Honestly, do you want to know why I post such whacky stuff to my Facebook? Because I’ve been having a meltdown. It’s been going on. It just hurts.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2016
There aren't enough ratings in the world for the service you have rendered here today.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2017
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
Ahhh, failure to understand jurisdiction and cause of action. The favorite failing of these lawlcows. Sinks so many of them. And it's GLORIOUS.
T
TL 611
Guest
kiwifarms.net
lmao
Hearing him verbalise "Ariana Grande didn't slobber on my cock so I'm suing her" is just BRILLIANT. Ariana caused Russ to have serious depression by not mentioning his suit? Because she didn't lie about his looks? How the fuck is a judge supposed to find anything illegal there?
- Joined
- May 22, 2017
In the video outside of the courtroom, Russ is just gruesomely unattractive. He looks like something that hobbled out of a nightmare. The fact that he truly believes himself to be a 9 or that he feels entitled to date "only 9s and 10s" is so starkly divorced from any modicum of logic or awareness that it should be cause to put Russ on some kind of federal watch list.
If the kid were any greasier, Bush might invade him for oil.
If the kid were any greasier, Bush might invade him for oil.