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

If you were Taylor Swift, whom would you rather date?

  • Russell Greer

    Votes: 117 4.5%
  • Travis Kelce

    Votes: 138 5.3%
  • Null

    Votes: 1,451 55.8%
  • Kanye West

    Votes: 285 11.0%
  • Ariana Grande

    Votes: 609 23.4%

  • Total voters
    2,600
He used to say he worked in a law office all the time. He was trying to get people to assume he was a lawyer, but without saying it since you can get in trouble for saying you're a lawyer if you're not.

This might be my favorite Russism. if he was a lawyer he’d just say that; his attempts at manipulation are so transparent.


I LOVE that he doesn’t get what “as-applied” means He’s challenging the prohibition on brothels as unconstitutional on its face (facially). If he was trying to say that it’s unconstitutional to apply the prohibition on brothels to him, that would be “as-applied.”
A good example of an “as applied” challenge would be a state requiring a birth certificate to vote and an elderly person not having one because they were born at home. The law itself is constitutional, but the elderly person could bring a claim of being burdened because their birth certificate never existed, and it’s unfair that they’re now unable to exercise the fundamental right of voting.

Wow, I just spent too long trying to fix Russlogic into reality. But who knows; I’m a bunny, not a paralegal.
 
This might be my favorite Russism. if he was a lawyer he’d just say that; his attempts at manipulation are so transparent.



I LOVE that he doesn’t get what “as-applied” means He’s challenging the prohibition on brothels as unconstitutional on its face (facially). If he was trying to say that it’s unconstitutional to apply the prohibition on brothels to him, that would be “as-applied.”
A good example of an “as applied” challenge would be a state requiring a birth certificate to vote and an elderly person not having one because they were born at home. The law itself is constitutional, but the elderly person could bring a claim of being burdened because their birth certificate never existed, and it’s unfair that they’re now unable to exercise the fundamental right of voting.

Wow, I just spent too long trying to fix Russlogic into reality. But who knows; I’m a bunny, not a paralegal.

It's even simpler than that. Brothels are a commercial enterprise by their very nature, and within a state's borders, they have absolute authority to regulate commerce within their own borders, because the federal government can only deal with economic issues that cross state lines, while this would be a purely intra-state issue.

Basically, he's trying to argue federal law won't let him do something it cannot even touch to begin with.
 
It's even simpler than that. Brothels are a commercial enterprise by their very nature, and within a state's borders, they have absolute authority to regulate commerce within their own borders, because the federal government can only deal with economic issues that cross state lines, while this would be a purely intra-state issue.

Basically, he's trying to argue federal law won't let him do something it cannot even touch to begin with.
Furthermore, in Lawrence, the majority was clear that it only applied to personal, non-commercial consensual sexual relations between legal adults.
 
Why doesn’t he import some impoverished woman from some third-world country, draw up a contract stating the terms of their marriage/arrangement, and be done with it? He could probably get some poor soul to agree to marry him, service him one or twice a week, and then get a divorce after 3 years or so. She gets a pre-set amount of money and citizenship or a return ticket. Yes, he’s repellant but some people are desperate.
 
Why doesn’t he import some impoverished woman from some third-world country, draw up a contract stating the terms of their marriage/arrangement, and be done with it? He could probably get some poor soul to agree to marry him, service him one or twice a week, and then get a divorce after 3 years or so. She gets a pre-set amount of money and citizenship or a return ticket. Yes, he’s repellant but some people are desperate.

Expense and he doesn't seem to want a wife . He wants a 9-10 cute, hot co-ed to be seen with and validate him or sex worker who who caters to his ego, gives him a sex, and then goes away having performed her intended function. He doesn't appear to have any deeper interests in another person. At least, that's what I've gleaned from my limited cringewatching of this exceptional individual.
 

Just wanted to include the text of that post so it's searchable

Greer Russell
10 hrs ·
I feel like Dred Scott, the black slave who asked the courts for his freedom and was denied. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford. The same thing recently happened: as a disabled man, I was denied my sexual freedoms by a federal magistrate judge. The state is controlling my destiny and my penis. It’s so ridiculous.

We NEED to remove judges that openly express their religious, moral and political views. A judge is supposed to be impartial and fair. Not in Utah. Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead presided over my case that was challenging the brothel laws. Upon researching him when I began my case, I found his judicial profile, in which Pead openly praises his good, ole Mormon missionary days. I let any concerns go, as a judge is supposed to be fair. Well, he dismissed my case for saying I failed to “state a claim”, when I actually gave much evidence for my claims. There is no way his views in an invisible fairy god and a mythical book that lambasts “whoredoms”, tainted my case.

Besides the possibility that his religious views tainted my case, the ruling was wrong on so many levels. Let me explain:

1. Pead analyzed my case “facially”, which means he felt I was challenging all of the laws, when no: I was only challenging laws “as applied” to brothels. I made this clear through many briefs.

2. He failed to analyze my strongest arguments: equal protection claims. For instance, if a reason for not allowing prostitution is because it is not within bonds of family rearing; it spreads STDS, etc, then why are one night stands or escorts or sugar daddies allowed? He simply said I failed to state a claim.

3. Pead also failed to find those secondary effects in licensed brothels, which is what I was trying to open. Instead, he put all results together.

Needless to say, I feel exhausted. I feel breathless. All of that time filing documents and it’s like my words were ignored. I shouldn’t expect less from a man who believes in a cloud creature.

I have let the Utah Attorney General's Office know that I am filing an appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. If anything, I am hoping the original ruling can get tossed from Pead’s obvious and open religious bias. Utah Attorney General's Office

I will say this: the judge called me “intelligent” and said that my arguments were “engaging”. That I give him praise for. But flattery words can only do so much.

As a side note, almost all historic cases have lost in the first round. So this ain’t over. #round2 #appeals Reason Magazine Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project Erotic Service Providers Union Reason Magazine Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research ProjectErotic Service Providers Union

Moonlite Bunny Ranch
 
When considering a motion to dismiss, you have to consider the non-moving party's fact in the most favorable light, i.e. consider Russell's complaint(s) as favorably as possible. That's why the order describes Russell's alleged facts as if they are true and accurate.

I'll note that this poster is not merely stating a personal opinion. This is actually the legal standard for judging a motion to dismiss.
 
Back