- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Last edited:
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
Bridgeburner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
Rackets has a severe case of Pomegranate nose from the booze more than anything.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
Solid work. The little twerp also tried to harm the career of "S" - a professional woman working in the legal sphere. She was able to push back AFAIR, but we know Shitlips would go Yaniv on persecuting women if he could gain the same victim traction that Yaniv was able to.
EDIT:Based Skordas' account will be bookmarking your post. The day will come....
Butters scotch
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2020
Russ writes legal responses like C-grade Hollywood scripts
On Null if pulled into DMCA action on copyrighted works:
On Null if pulled into DMCA action on copyrighted works:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
Greer part starts around 43 min.
I also notice in chat someone post RIP TUG CHANNEL.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
Between reading the Erika texts and ratfaces new filing,How he has gotten through life without being beaten to death is a mystery. He really pushed the line in the Erika and to Chad . Still waiting for Yovanna tor one of her friends to drop a comment that will make him full of rage and he does more of his typical stupidity actions.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
Not really. His saggy face has clearly saved his life many times as no-one wants to be known as the dude who battered a mong. Even if they deserved it.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
So Rusty’s approach to filings is to submit to the court evidence that he is clearly a person of public interest with a long trail of deranged behavior and abuse of the legal system? And to provide clear examples where he himself committed perjury before a Judge. BRILLIANT!
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2019
Sir, this is a W̶e̶n̶d̶y̶’s̶ Russell Greer thread.
Ah, the classic teenage “I’m leaving MySpace for good say farewell! Oh you all love me and don’t want me to leave, okay.”
Except no one but Kiwis want him to stay on Facebook.
No joke. I can’t decide who is more cringe worthy these days though— Rackets or his horrifically unfunny fans.
DumbDude42
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
nobody wants to be known as the guy who assaulted a cripple
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
If Yovanna or one of her friends comments at all, Russ will see that as vindication that at least he was noticed. I think the throwaway comment she made earlier is all he's going to get, and when that becomes apparent, he's gonna react in typical Russ fashion.
We can't understand his strategy because we are not young legal professionals with superb training in the law like he is. I like how he thinks sending a letter to the judge in his harassment case somehow makes his guilty plea less than a guilty plea.
DuckofDoom
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2020
Another masterpiece of legal writing. Absolute genius to include a footnote about "kicking" himself over failing to sue the farms four years ago, I'm sure that will convince the judge to waive the statute of limitations.
Bridgeburner
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
While waiting for the next chimpout, I read through these messages again and I'm still amazed at his thought processes. If I did a shot for every time he said he's a great guy/nice/the best, I would need to have my stomach pumped.
You can really tell that this is the first time a woman showed interest in him (even though it was mostly professional curiousity) because he oozes desperation worse than any horny teenager. And all those fake apologies - I don't know what I did, I'm sorry you feel that way, I apologize if I said anything... just yuck.
Also, can't stop laughing (again) that her boyfriend is literally a Chad.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Analysis of Greer's newest filing:
That's incorrect. As addressed in my previous analysis, neither your complaint, nor your reply motion showed clear causes of action for which relief can be granted (Rule 12 (b) (6)).
If it's anything like your reply, then this will fail horribly.
Everything here was bad and useless, except the highlighted part. While an outright lie, alleging that Null personally infringed on your copyright is a good move.
True, however the "factual allegations" must be supported by proof, otherwise the claims need not be considered and your lawsuit is open to dismissal (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). And I have proved before in my analysis, and I will prove it here, that your allegations are not supported by facts enough to avoid Ashcroft v Iqbal.
Factually false as we will soon see.
I think this needs no commentary from me. Assuming the worst, however, I'd say he's attempting to abuse the "handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed" privilege. However, while it's harder to dismiss a pro se document ("[it]can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."), he still prove no facts, and as such his complaint should be dismissed (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97)
Admitting that your only proof for defamation was invalid and frivolous is not a good look. It also goes against Rule 401 of Federal Rules of Evidence.
Richard could just have been any regular person who bought a book when it was released, didn't like it, and gave it a bad review. I say this is inadmissible under Rule 401 of FRE. Were it admissible, this is not Kiwifarms acting, nor Null, and so it is irrelevant. You are also assuming intent (which would be against FRE Rule 104(b) ), which is both conclusory (as it is unsupported by facts), and therefore invalid (Ashcroft v. Iqbal), but it is also the job of the court and or the jury (and even the jury is forbidden to do this in cases of criminal trials Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246)
Wrong. I will repost my counter argument (with his argument) from my previous analysis, just so we can see his argument more clearly.
Were it correct, it still doesn't incriminate Kiwifarms or Null, only the users of Kiwifarms, and as such it is irrelevant and should be disregarded (FRE 401).
1. The Website is not responsible for the actions of its users.
2. This is against FRE 404 (a) (1), (b) (1), and it cannot be admitted as evidence.
So, you admit that all evidence you have is useless?
This kills his case. This shows to the court that the issue wasn't urgent or all that damaging. Skordas will pound this line over and over again, I bet.
Defamation and harassment are two different things. That being said, your original complaint had no "2020 statements" of defamation made by the defendants, and you have not amended your pleading to provide such evidence. Your Defamation and False Light claims still fail.
I'm not sure you can use "events" as proof of defamation. Defamation can only happen upon a written or spoken word (Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) ). Furthermore, your original complaint had no "2020 statements" of defamation made by the defendants, and you have not amended your pleading to provide such evidence. Your Defamation and False Light claims still fail.
This dismisses every cause of action against Null, Kiwifarms except copyright (by his own assertion). This kills your case, Russ. Everything else in his argument about CDA is irrelevant.
But Null didn't, and you failed to show that he did. This citation is unusable. In regards to copyrighted material, Null specifically told his users to make sure it's fair use, otherwise he will delete it.
1. District court cases are (usually )non-precedential (Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010), United States v. Mollner, 643 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2011) )
2. Were it an appeals court decision (its not) it would not be 10th circuit.
3. In that case Anglin actively participated in actions he was sued for, even going as far as committing those same actions, which is not the case here.
4. He actively directed his followers to commit actions he was sued for (threats, defamation, etc). That is not the case here.
This case is likely non-precedential, completely different situation from this one, and very likely non-applicable.
Most of other things in this section are irrelevant, but I will address some.
Mockery is perfectly legal and allowed by the Supreme Court (see for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 ) )
Incorrect. No authorization was given to mock, although admittedly, he probably does not mind. That being said, mockery is not illegal.
Gersh is non-precedental.
For this to be applicable, Null would have had to waive his protections in court, not outside it.
Skordas cited a newer case that disproves you, and one from the correct circuit. It hardly matters what the 9th has said, when the 10th has ruled otherwise.
Rest of that is just a repeat of the same, so I am skipping forward
As the court very well should.
True. Skordas miscited the argument of defense as the court's ruling.
1. Section 230.
2. "may be", not "must be"
3. You did not establish that Null knew your works would be reproduced.
4. You did not establish that Null, himself, posted your works.
5. Null did not "intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement" which is the requirement by SCOTUS (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005))
6. Your cited case goes against the ruling of SCOTUS.
Null is allowed to host works for purposes of fair use. This does not mean he is authorizing or encouraging unlawful stealing of Greer's works.
That's not what happened here, however. As such the argument fails.
1. Fair Use is not infringing.
2. Null did not teach people how to steal your products.
3. Null did not advertise that he was stealing your product.
4. Section 230.
It is a fact though. You even got convicted during said court "date".
Russ just proved us correct that it was factual, and correct.
Russ just lied to the court, and admitted that he did.
You needn't be convicted to have a victim. And, regardless, this is a statement not by Kiwifarms or Null (meaning it's useless), and even if it was, it could be taken as hyperbole (Greenbelt Co-Op. Publ. Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) )
Notice that it doesn't say "by". That's very important.
Since I am getting a bit tired of writing, take my word that the rest of his defamation claims are more of the same. He keeps confusing users with the site, and at point lying about what was said.
It's not introduced into evidence that he made any defamatory comments, only that he asked for more info and was going to talk about it, no evidence is presented that he did.
Russel then whines more about CDA.
1. No you can't because it doesn't relate to Null or Kiwifarms.
2. Glad you admit part of your suit was frivolous.
And that's it! Done.
Edit: All his claims of Defamation against Null are made infinitely harder by his admission (in original complaint) that he is likely a limited-purpose public figure. Hint, hint, Russ, you don't understand actual malice.
Hope you enjoyed reading it. It took a long time to write.
TLDR: Russ made 1 good point. All the rest were completely garbage.
That's incorrect. As addressed in my previous analysis, neither your complaint, nor your reply motion showed clear causes of action for which relief can be granted (Rule 12 (b) (6)).
If it's anything like your reply, then this will fail horribly.
Everything here was bad and useless, except the highlighted part. While an outright lie, alleging that Null personally infringed on your copyright is a good move.
True, however the "factual allegations" must be supported by proof, otherwise the claims need not be considered and your lawsuit is open to dismissal (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). And I have proved before in my analysis, and I will prove it here, that your allegations are not supported by facts enough to avoid Ashcroft v Iqbal.
Factually false as we will soon see.
I think this needs no commentary from me. Assuming the worst, however, I'd say he's attempting to abuse the "handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed" privilege. However, while it's harder to dismiss a pro se document ("[it]can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."), he still prove no facts, and as such his complaint should be dismissed (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97)
Admitting that your only proof for defamation was invalid and frivolous is not a good look. It also goes against Rule 401 of Federal Rules of Evidence.
Richard could just have been any regular person who bought a book when it was released, didn't like it, and gave it a bad review. I say this is inadmissible under Rule 401 of FRE. Were it admissible, this is not Kiwifarms acting, nor Null, and so it is irrelevant. You are also assuming intent (which would be against FRE Rule 104(b) ), which is both conclusory (as it is unsupported by facts), and therefore invalid (Ashcroft v. Iqbal), but it is also the job of the court and or the jury (and even the jury is forbidden to do this in cases of criminal trials Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246)
Wrong. I will repost my counter argument (with his argument) from my previous analysis, just so we can see his argument more clearly.
Were it correct, it still doesn't incriminate Kiwifarms or Null, only the users of Kiwifarms, and as such it is irrelevant and should be disregarded (FRE 401).
1. The Website is not responsible for the actions of its users.
2. This is against FRE 404 (a) (1), (b) (1), and it cannot be admitted as evidence.
So, you admit that all evidence you have is useless?
This kills his case. This shows to the court that the issue wasn't urgent or all that damaging. Skordas will pound this line over and over again, I bet.
Defamation and harassment are two different things. That being said, your original complaint had no "2020 statements" of defamation made by the defendants, and you have not amended your pleading to provide such evidence. Your Defamation and False Light claims still fail.
I'm not sure you can use "events" as proof of defamation. Defamation can only happen upon a written or spoken word (Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) ). Furthermore, your original complaint had no "2020 statements" of defamation made by the defendants, and you have not amended your pleading to provide such evidence. Your Defamation and False Light claims still fail.
This dismisses every cause of action against Null, Kiwifarms except copyright (by his own assertion). This kills your case, Russ. Everything else in his argument about CDA is irrelevant.
But Null didn't, and you failed to show that he did. This citation is unusable. In regards to copyrighted material, Null specifically told his users to make sure it's fair use, otherwise he will delete it.
1. District court cases are (usually )non-precedential (Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 601 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2010), United States v. Mollner, 643 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2011) )
2. Were it an appeals court decision (its not) it would not be 10th circuit.
3. In that case Anglin actively participated in actions he was sued for, even going as far as committing those same actions, which is not the case here.
4. He actively directed his followers to commit actions he was sued for (threats, defamation, etc). That is not the case here.
This case is likely non-precedential, completely different situation from this one, and very likely non-applicable.
Most of other things in this section are irrelevant, but I will address some.
Mockery is perfectly legal and allowed by the Supreme Court (see for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 ) )
Incorrect. No authorization was given to mock, although admittedly, he probably does not mind. That being said, mockery is not illegal.
Gersh is non-precedental.
For this to be applicable, Null would have had to waive his protections in court, not outside it.
Skordas cited a newer case that disproves you, and one from the correct circuit. It hardly matters what the 9th has said, when the 10th has ruled otherwise.
Rest of that is just a repeat of the same, so I am skipping forward
As the court very well should.
True. Skordas miscited the argument of defense as the court's ruling.
1. Section 230.
2. "may be", not "must be"
3. You did not establish that Null knew your works would be reproduced.
4. You did not establish that Null, himself, posted your works.
5. Null did not "intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement" which is the requirement by SCOTUS (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005))
6. Your cited case goes against the ruling of SCOTUS.
Null is allowed to host works for purposes of fair use. This does not mean he is authorizing or encouraging unlawful stealing of Greer's works.
That's not what happened here, however. As such the argument fails.
1. Fair Use is not infringing.
2. Null did not teach people how to steal your products.
3. Null did not advertise that he was stealing your product.
4. Section 230.
It is a fact though. You even got convicted during said court "date".
Russ just proved us correct that it was factual, and correct.
Russ just lied to the court, and admitted that he did.
You needn't be convicted to have a victim. And, regardless, this is a statement not by Kiwifarms or Null (meaning it's useless), and even if it was, it could be taken as hyperbole (Greenbelt Co-Op. Publ. Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970) )
Notice that it doesn't say "by". That's very important.
Since I am getting a bit tired of writing, take my word that the rest of his defamation claims are more of the same. He keeps confusing users with the site, and at point lying about what was said.
It's not introduced into evidence that he made any defamatory comments, only that he asked for more info and was going to talk about it, no evidence is presented that he did.
Russel then whines more about CDA.
1. No you can't because it doesn't relate to Null or Kiwifarms.
2. Glad you admit part of your suit was frivolous.
And that's it! Done.
Edit: All his claims of Defamation against Null are made infinitely harder by his admission (in original complaint) that he is likely a limited-purpose public figure. Hint, hint, Russ, you don't understand actual malice.
Hope you enjoyed reading it. It took a long time to write.
TLDR: Russ made 1 good point. All the rest were completely garbage.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
Sing it with me y'all. BUTTHURT IS NOT A TORT! If I could teach just ONE THING to these lolcow it would be that. But nooooo. They will never learn. And so they remain. Forever cows. Mooing for our delight and laughter. Forever a spectacle.
Never change Russ. Never ever change. Lol
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Given the choice between the two people laden with unchecked egos and all-consuming and unquestioning media diets, I’d say Russell is worse than Chris-Chan.
Say what you will, but Chris was appropriately rattled by a night (or two) in jail for assault. Russell walked out of jail for threatening a school shooting, but, in Why I Sued Taylor Swift, he may as well be walking out of the Mayberry pokey all like, “Well, Andy, I sure learned my lesson.”
That whole book is endlessly fascinating and re-readable in this light, to catch all the tropes and how he mangles them or plays them straight with no irony whatsoever.
As a side note, I wonder where John Grisham or Aaron Sorkin sit in Russell’s wading pool of influences. To grade on a steep curve,Why I Sued reads like a screenplay optioned from an airport bookstore thriller. And, so help me, reading it, I could visualize Jay Schaudies and “John Smith” walking-and-talking through the back halls of Salt Lake City courthouses while saying “Taylor Swift does not want this getting out.”
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
Just a reminder to those who post streams from Nick Rekieta's channel, Nick privates his streams after a period of time and uploads the archives onto this channel:
You may want to go back through the thread and replace the unviewable videos with the archives.
You may want to go back through the thread and replace the unviewable videos with the archives.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
Rekieta’s previous Greerstreams worked so well because he was kind of a “straight man.” It was funny to watch a professional untangle the deranged rantings of a legal ignoramus, in the same way it’s funny to read detailed and “serious” artistic critiques of Sonichu on the Cwcki. Watching one eccentric person rant about another eccentric person is less entertaining and less valuable.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
He unlists them, but doesn't private them. They are all still watchable with a direct link