- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
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
- Thread starter Cryin RN
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Ah yeah, this classic shit again. So much cringe to unpack..,
* I'm a great guy!
No, butternut, you aren't. You're a disgusting, unhygienic bridge troll. Saying you're a great guy is one of the biggest red flags out there--that is for OTHERS to say, not you.
* I'll buy you a shake.
Try to stop sounding like a cringy 30 year old that is simultaneously a creepy 55 year old high school teacher tryna get into a freshman girl's panties.
* We should meet up/I want to take you out as friends.
Which is it, Obama? Hashtag Notadate or more slurpy slimy pathetic begging for a pity fuck?
* Treat Yo Self.
As much as myself and others are dismayed to have you in our ranks, you are WHITE, dipshit.
* I can't close my lips.
This has always been one of my biggest pet peeves with butternut. You can't CLOSE YOUR FUCKING MOUTH. Who the fuckity fuck fuck says can't close my lips. Russell does! I keep getting mental images of that mermaid vulva from The Lighthouse when he says shit like this--and it ain't like he doesn't have hypersex on the brain already.
* Sad and confused.
Yeah you fucking are, slurpy. And pathetic as almighty fuck. No one likes a stage five clinger. Again, Russell Greer is rubber booger personified.
* I think we have a lot in common.
C'mon MAAAAAN! What? Name one thing. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Just be honest you fucking mong--you don't even know what her eye color is.
* And if we meet, and you don't want to see me again, I understand.
Famous. Last. Words. I am not even dignifying this further with a response.
* That fucking picture he sent. It looks like the butt baby of David Miscavige, 50 year old Tom Cruise, and a greasy derelict from a bus station on the South Side of Chicago when the ghey bars let out. Please form a single line, laaaaadddiiiies.
* Just wanting to hang out as friends.
NO. YOU. FUCKING. DON'T. Jesus, it's almost as if you were asleep when they had acting in bad faith 101 over at upstairs stripmall collage.
This will always be for me, one of my top horror reading picks--right next to good ol' H.P. Lovecraft.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
I just can't get enough of that part about Erika. It's so Russell. "The fact is, Greer doesn't have ANY victims." But also, legally, I do have a victim because I pled guilty to harassing her. Also, there he goes again with the random capitalization. I love when he does that, it's his way of explaining things slowly in a frustrated tone of voice as if he's teaching a retard. "Greer has been respectful in his reaching out." lol doubt. Per se, a phrase he says far too often, this is incorrect, because he pled guilty to harassment.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Yet another filing that reads like a diary entry but with "I" replaced with "Plaintiff."
"Plaintiff painstakingly described in his Complaint the horrors he has been subjected to by Kiwi Farms"
Greer describes Skordas's legal writing as "haphazard." Hoo boy.
Greer refers to Null's invitation to "Try me" about a dozen times. It seems that really got under his skin.
"By saying that Plaintiff has 'a date in court with one of his victims', it lends the false idea that Plaintiff is akin to Ted Bundy" -- Russell, you are NOT akin to Ted Bundy. Bundy had a girlfriend and a law degree from a real university.
"Too studly for this blank space -- exhibit on the next page"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
I just wanted to highlight this footnote from the whole document because it's just so beautiful. He can't help himself.
So much packed into two sentences and one footnote.
1) How is it a "fact" that the pipsqueak has no victims when, in the very next sentence, he establishes that they are legally a victim? How does he distinguish this in his head? How is a judge supposed to differentiate that when this is literally a court of law?
2) Why the fuck would anyone- let alone someone with supposed background in law- think that a judge would care that Russ, upon pleading guilty in a criminal case, wrote a letter to that presiding judge to "inform" him that the intent was innocent? 76-9-20 has intent as an element of the crime! This would be like if some entered a guilty plea for 1st degree murder and then wrote the judge later and said "well, I didn't mean to kill him." Not the proper venue for it. And the fact that YOU, the defendant, wrote a letter saying that you were innocent is not something that is going to sway anyone to think you were actually, innocent, you ninny.
3) Once you've been convicted, you are guilty unless you find a way to reverse that disposition. It doesn't matter if your lawyer tells you- or even thinks- you "could have (been) found... not guilty." The standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." So even if it WERE an edge case, it's still not a question of guilty or innocence as much as whether there is quite enough evidence to convict. No one cares what could have happened, because it didn't- because you pled guilty and were damn well told that you were only supposed to do it if you were actually guilty. Unless it was an Alfred plea and I don't remember, but nobody cares anyway.
4) Oh, Russ only pled guilty because he "didn't want his future to be consumed with litigation?" Is that so? The same short little rat that has... how many lawsuits that he has launched against attractive women who wouldn't fuck him? Lawsuits that have all been dismissed. I have honestly lost count. Is this REALLY a door you want to be opening for literally no reason, Russ?
So much packed into two sentences and one footnote.
1) How is it a "fact" that the pipsqueak has no victims when, in the very next sentence, he establishes that they are legally a victim? How does he distinguish this in his head? How is a judge supposed to differentiate that when this is literally a court of law?
2) Why the fuck would anyone- let alone someone with supposed background in law- think that a judge would care that Russ, upon pleading guilty in a criminal case, wrote a letter to that presiding judge to "inform" him that the intent was innocent? 76-9-20 has intent as an element of the crime! This would be like if some entered a guilty plea for 1st degree murder and then wrote the judge later and said "well, I didn't mean to kill him." Not the proper venue for it. And the fact that YOU, the defendant, wrote a letter saying that you were innocent is not something that is going to sway anyone to think you were actually, innocent, you ninny.
3) Once you've been convicted, you are guilty unless you find a way to reverse that disposition. It doesn't matter if your lawyer tells you- or even thinks- you "could have (been) found... not guilty." The standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." So even if it WERE an edge case, it's still not a question of guilty or innocence as much as whether there is quite enough evidence to convict. No one cares what could have happened, because it didn't- because you pled guilty and were damn well told that you were only supposed to do it if you were actually guilty. Unless it was an Alfred plea and I don't remember, but nobody cares anyway.
4) Oh, Russ only pled guilty because he "didn't want his future to be consumed with litigation?" Is that so? The same short little rat that has... how many lawsuits that he has launched against attractive women who wouldn't fuck him? Lawsuits that have all been dismissed. I have honestly lost count. Is this REALLY a door you want to be opening for literally no reason, Russ?
Damien Thorne
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2020
Yeah, I know a few people with legitimate intellectual disability diagnoses that have a lot more common sense than Russ has displayed here. He is about as bad of a liar as William H Macy’s character was in Fargo.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
After reading Russell's frantic explanation that Erika isn't his victim because the whole "being convicted of stalking" thing was just a big misunderstanding, I couldn't resist taking a trip down Memory Lane to the Erika texts.Alright, let's begin. She had never heard of him before this and did not know about this thread prior to today (she is now enjoying the insanity). She was trying to be extra nice, but quickly realized he is insane. A few times she appears to sperg out, but that's because during those messages he was leaving several nasty comments on her instagram from multiple accounts (she had deleted these already and blocked him so I could not get screenshots). These came through out of order so some may be slightly off. The reason it says "Maybe Russell Greer" and that there are several numbers is because he was making several accounts and using texting apps to harass her. She threatened him with the cops and that seemed to make him scurry away back to his rented room.
This exchange may be my favorite of the entire series:
Erika: "I would say I like [Chad] a lot hahaha if we are being honest"
Russell: "Lol Ok"
There's just so much anguish and frustration buried in that "Lol Ok."
I also enjoy the interlude in which Russ frantically tries to argue Erika out of her attraction to Chad. Russell: "You owe him no duty." Like, "No, Erika! Don't you understand? You have no legal obligation to run your hands adoringly across Chad's bulging muscles! You're free to go! Don't you see?" There's so much ill-concealed flirty energy in Erika's texts anytime she talks about Chad; you can practically hear her twirling her hair around her finger anytime she mentions him. I can hardly imagine the impotent rage coursing through Russell's veins as he read those texts.
Also impressive is the way Russell bounces back from his first big blow-up with Erika: she very firmly tells him that she has a boyfriend, that he needs to give her space, and that he needs to stop guilt-tripping her with bullshit about his disability. He acknowledges it, then, less than a week later, he comes back out of nowhere with "I'm not living my best life, but with you, I could be.
"
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
"A minor offense". That's how Russ views his months-long campaign of harassment against Erika. Months of being texted threats of suicide and of Russ coming to her home and her work, texts from faked numbers and from sockpuppets. Multiple times she told Russ to stop, but he ignored her. This was not a momentary lapse of judgement, it was a continued and pervasive pattern of antisocial behavior from a deeply disturbed man. But according to Russ, it was all a misunderstanding, a mistake, a minor offense. If you'd just let him explain...
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2020
He is so goddamn pretentious. "I, the benevolent Russell Greer, peace be upon him, have bestowed upon you the chance to learn from the mistake of daring for even a second to question my greatness, and I offer you the chance to ruin your life to appease me with nothing in return and be thankful for the chance to do so." Fuck outta here, Russell.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2021
The emotive and sloppy wording is coming out, he’s pissed.
That poor judge, she has to sit through this and try to figure out which bits were there just because he wants them noted but knows they have no place in the suit and which bits he actually wants her to pay attention to.
He’s actually asking for an oral argument, it’ll never happen but this would be amazing. Pipsqueak thinks he’s some big movie lawyer until he’s in the courtroom and falls to pieces because he doesn’t actually understand what even he’s trying to say. He just wants his opportunity to explain.
Anyway, my interpretation of the big ramble:
“I know Skordas said some fancy law stuff but he’s wrong. It doesn’t matter why, he’s just wrong.
I am not stupid, I know what a statute of limitations is, I simply included stuff from years ago for you to read, not for you to actually read.
Here are some laws I’ve come across that won’t help me at all. Now, if you could be a good girl and pop along to change constitutional law before this case is heard that would be most useful. Once that is done, you may revisit my legal arguments and rule in context of the law change in my favour.
Mush mouthed autistics.
I am in great pain because kiwi farms is mean and this is totally Moon’s fault. They’re still killing people left, right and center.
They accuse me of being a stalker and I dispute this because I’m only criminally convicted of stalking through a strange quirk of fate. It’s only stalking if I make it to their bedroom in the dead of night and stand over them until they wake. The law really doesn’t matter here, it is my interpretation that I’m barely even a stalker at all.
They say I have victims. In law there is only one victim because only one women actually took it that far. I behave this way with other women, it’s called ‘being flirty’. It just happens that only one woman prosecuted and because I dispute the meaning stalking, then you can’t really count her anyway. Therefore, I have no victims because I am not Ted Bundy. Besides, I wrote to the judge to tell him how wrong he was so it’s all sorted out now.
I have only pursued a small number of famous women and this wasn’t even romantic, this is my line of work. Please ignore the nudes I thought were for Katy Perry, my very recent video asking Yovanna on a date, the whole Taylor Swift red dress thing. Ariana Grande isn’t even worth mentioning since she literally blew up her own audience. And if Skordas tells you I was stalking his daughter too that is also in case she had connections to get me a number one chart spot.
Anyway, on the copyright, I just give in to be quite honest, but if you could could close them down on this basis anyway I’d appreciate it.
Love from, Ron”
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
Lordy, harassing females is a "minor offence" a comforting thought.
yaniv and Greer have a lot in common especially when it comes to women. Strangely enough, jonathan yaniv claimed a "misunderstanding" also.
StraightShooter2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2020
Honestly, if Chris Hansen did one of those sting operations, I wonder how Russ would respond if he thought he was messaging an attractive 13-year old girl.
I think this guy learned all of his "legal advice" from watching reruns of Harvey Birdman on Adult Swim.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
Unless she was Hannah Montana or something, I don't think he would. I don't remember there being evidence of Russ being into minors... and we have plenty of evidence for everything he IS into, unfortunately.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
The second quote you replied to is not mine but Constellationzero 's.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
Russell Greer and Victims, an in depth look.
To truly understand Russell and his claim of not having any Victims, we must first look into his past.
Exhibit A: The (Legal) Hooker
Plaintiff Greer spread false rumours that a sex worker had aids, thus impacting this sex workers ability to earn money. He aggressively verbally attacked said sex worker, going after both her personal and private life, contacting her work and leaving defamatory statements across the internet.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit B: Bailey
Plaintiff Greer asked out the late Bailey on a date. Bailey responded by telling Greer she had a boyfriend.
Greer attacked Bailey afterwards, taking to her Instagram to leave nasty comments about her invisible boyfriend because he can’t handle rejection very well.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit C: Taylor Swift
Plaintiff Greer wrote a song for Taylor Swift, which she could not accept due to policy. He believed this was his door into the industry and was upset that Miss Swift denied him this.
Greer began to harass Swift and her family, wishing death on her mother, sending books to her family home and fabricating an entire rivalry with Swift, one she had little to no idea about.
On his first attempt to sue Swift, in which she was expertly represented by Greg Skordas, his actions were described as troubling and invasive, and his case was thrown out. His second attempts at a suit seem to have fallen flat, but he continues to pose that Miss Swift had a hand in his downfall.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit D: Ariana Grande
Plaintiff Greer attended an Ariana Grande concert, which he purchased a Meet and Greer ticket for.
He took gifts, which were expressly not allowed, and they were taken from him. He had his picture took with Miss Grande, sat in on a Q&A session and seemingly enjoyed the concert. He later changed his profile picture to the picture of him and Grande, noting how much he enjoyed the experience and how he hoped she would react positively to his gift.
However, after time passed and Grande was in the news due to the unfortunate Manchester Bombing, Greer decided that he had been discriminated against at the event he had attended and decided the correct line of action against a recent terrorist attack victim would be to sue Miss Grande. His evidence? Grande did not look very happy in the picture they had taken, in his personal opinion.
This case also made it to trial, in which Greer came out on the losing end once again. He had no proof he was discriminated against and all evidence pointed to him enjoying the night and being mad that another ‘door into the industry’ has closed.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit E: Erika.
Erika is a young working professional whom Plaintiff Greer had reached out to over social media. Erika was kind to Greer, offering a shoulder to cry on, so to speak, and friendship. Greer developed a romantic interest in her, and when she denied him, he began a campaign of harassment that spanned months, culminating in Erika pressing charges against Greer for Electronic Communications Harassment. During the trial it was made clear the troubling extent Greer went to harass Erika, making false numbers to text her, texting her boyfriend, sending emails accusing her of discrimination and other actions.
Greer was convicted of ECH, being given a suspended sentence, being fined and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. This court case was open to the public, and could be reported on as those present saw fit.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
These five women make up only some of the people who have been subjected to Plaintiff Greers harassment over the past five years.
Plaintiff Greer shows a troubling pattern of harassment to the women he seeks attention and/or affection from, often trying to use the legal system to bully them into giving him the outcome he desires.
In conclusion, Plaintiff Greer has at least one victim, found by a court of a law, but evidence would lead one to believe that Greer has many victims, and if his pattern of behaviour (for which he’s shown no remorse) continues, that list will grow.
Greer is someone who values the legal system and it’s definitions in his multiple lawsuits, and if the other women in this document chose to press charges then one would believe they would be successful in their claims too.
Greer is a dangerous and delusional individual and it’s easy to see, at least to this writer, that this pattern of escalation will only continue, leaving more victims in its wake.
Thank you for reading this short breakdown of why Plaintiff Greer is always wrong.
To truly understand Russell and his claim of not having any Victims, we must first look into his past.
Exhibit A: The (Legal) Hooker
Plaintiff Greer spread false rumours that a sex worker had aids, thus impacting this sex workers ability to earn money. He aggressively verbally attacked said sex worker, going after both her personal and private life, contacting her work and leaving defamatory statements across the internet.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit B: Bailey
Plaintiff Greer asked out the late Bailey on a date. Bailey responded by telling Greer she had a boyfriend.
Greer attacked Bailey afterwards, taking to her Instagram to leave nasty comments about her invisible boyfriend because he can’t handle rejection very well.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit C: Taylor Swift
Plaintiff Greer wrote a song for Taylor Swift, which she could not accept due to policy. He believed this was his door into the industry and was upset that Miss Swift denied him this.
Greer began to harass Swift and her family, wishing death on her mother, sending books to her family home and fabricating an entire rivalry with Swift, one she had little to no idea about.
On his first attempt to sue Swift, in which she was expertly represented by Greg Skordas, his actions were described as troubling and invasive, and his case was thrown out. His second attempts at a suit seem to have fallen flat, but he continues to pose that Miss Swift had a hand in his downfall.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit D: Ariana Grande
Plaintiff Greer attended an Ariana Grande concert, which he purchased a Meet and Greer ticket for.
He took gifts, which were expressly not allowed, and they were taken from him. He had his picture took with Miss Grande, sat in on a Q&A session and seemingly enjoyed the concert. He later changed his profile picture to the picture of him and Grande, noting how much he enjoyed the experience and how he hoped she would react positively to his gift.
However, after time passed and Grande was in the news due to the unfortunate Manchester Bombing, Greer decided that he had been discriminated against at the event he had attended and decided the correct line of action against a recent terrorist attack victim would be to sue Miss Grande. His evidence? Grande did not look very happy in the picture they had taken, in his personal opinion.
This case also made it to trial, in which Greer came out on the losing end once again. He had no proof he was discriminated against and all evidence pointed to him enjoying the night and being mad that another ‘door into the industry’ has closed.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
Exhibit E: Erika.
Erika is a young working professional whom Plaintiff Greer had reached out to over social media. Erika was kind to Greer, offering a shoulder to cry on, so to speak, and friendship. Greer developed a romantic interest in her, and when she denied him, he began a campaign of harassment that spanned months, culminating in Erika pressing charges against Greer for Electronic Communications Harassment. During the trial it was made clear the troubling extent Greer went to harass Erika, making false numbers to text her, texting her boyfriend, sending emails accusing her of discrimination and other actions.
Greer was convicted of ECH, being given a suspended sentence, being fined and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. This court case was open to the public, and could be reported on as those present saw fit.
Would we call this person a victim? Yes.
These five women make up only some of the people who have been subjected to Plaintiff Greers harassment over the past five years.
Plaintiff Greer shows a troubling pattern of harassment to the women he seeks attention and/or affection from, often trying to use the legal system to bully them into giving him the outcome he desires.
In conclusion, Plaintiff Greer has at least one victim, found by a court of a law, but evidence would lead one to believe that Greer has many victims, and if his pattern of behaviour (for which he’s shown no remorse) continues, that list will grow.
Greer is someone who values the legal system and it’s definitions in his multiple lawsuits, and if the other women in this document chose to press charges then one would believe they would be successful in their claims too.
Greer is a dangerous and delusional individual and it’s easy to see, at least to this writer, that this pattern of escalation will only continue, leaving more victims in its wake.
Thank you for reading this short breakdown of why Plaintiff Greer is always wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2020
This still doesn’t establish that “people harassing him and giving him bad reviews” is anything that Null is even remotely responsible for, you utterly deranged and dim-witted muttonhead. It doesn’t even establish that these people are necessarily from Kiwi Farms.
Also, I absolutely adore that in order to justify his use of a four-year-old (outside the statute of limitations) statement, he uses an even older statement.
I need to enroll in the cheapest, most fast-track University of American Samoa-esque correspondence course I can find, pass the bar in Nevada, and then open a practice which markets exclusively to defendants in this mook’s lawsuits. I’d make a fortune and I'd barely even have to show up.
You underestimate him. In this document alone I counted shots in both hands and both feet, and he put at least one round in his own ass.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
Runs-With-Swift Skordas (Indian Territory)
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
All "minor offences" in Greer World. He's moved on and so should everyone else, victims included, he has a life to live.
Bridgeburner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
I think his points is that he has no victimS. Legally, he only has one victim. An important distinction!
Racket has really become unwatchable. He milks those 10 pages over 3-4 hours, spending most of it drunk, shouting and answering superchat messages. Greer lips shtick also overstayed its welcome long time ago. I wonder what his wife tells to their kid(s) why is daddy yelling at the computer for like 10 hours every week.