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

[DrJonesHat]

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.

If you have to constantly tell people you're nice or great, you're not either of those things. People who are actually nice or great don't have to say anything because it's apparent by their actions.

 

[Rustled Jimmies]

Welcome back to Facebook chucklenuts. Did you realize how much your "loyal followers" would miss your witty posts such as how your light jog on a treadmill was so life changing and come back to us lowly peons?

 

[The Un-Clit]

G'reg Skordabodalogoleegiemahaolongastambawicatongo (Hawaii)

I'm way late on this trend but:

Guido Skordaso - New Jersey

Guilleaume MacSkordas - Ontario/Quebec

(I probably have to explain this for non-Canadians: Mixed French and Scottish ancestry is the classic mid-to-East Canada racial makeup.)

 

[DrJonesHat]

Chad Skordas (California) (It will never not be funny that Erika's bf at the time Russ was harassing her was really named Chad)

 

[Dr. Henry Armitage]

I'm way late on this trend but:

Guido Skordaso - New Jersey

Guilleaume MacSkordas - Ontario/Quebec

(I probably have to explain this to non-Canadians. Mixed French and Scottish ancestry is the classic mid-to-East Canada racial build.)

Walter Raleigh Skordas - North Carolina
A descendant of Sir Walter Raleigh. Family legend tells that prior to the disappearance on Roanoke the women of the colony were plagued at night by the sounds of slurping and promises of a better life.

 

[StinkySnack]

Gregoire Skordeaux
-Louisiana

(Pronounced Greg-WAH Skor-DOE)

 

[BULLY HUNTER_77]

No wonder he’s setting out his tux. In his mind, Russ put a MASSIVE down-payment on Free Instathot Sex And Associated Fame. Yovanna HAS to pay out! Otherwise it’s downright FRAUD! Why would he spend all this money if she wasn’t going to hold up her end of the bargain...every woman’s end? If lots of money is inserted, sex is dispensed. (In this case, the money was spent on attempts to flatter Yovanna, therefore Russ considers that money as more or less going to her, even if she doesn’t see a penny of it.)

This is the sort of logic I expect in Russell's inevitable lawsuit against Yovanna. He WILL invent a """duty""" that Yovanna or her agents failed to fulfill. He won't explicitly state that it was sex that he was expecting in his lawsuit, which is why the logic will be convoluted and hard to follow. Again.

 

[Pip Squeak]

Analysis of Greer's newest filing:

Spoiler: Analysis(long)

View attachment 2150191

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)).

View attachment 2150194

If it's anything like your reply, then this will fail horribly.

View attachment 2150199

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.

View attachment 2150207

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.

View attachment 2150209
Factually false as we will soon see.

View attachment 2150210
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)

View attachment 2150215
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.

View attachment 2150217
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)

View attachment 2150223

Wrong. I will repost my counter argument (with his argument) from my previous analysis, just so we can see his argument more clearly.
View attachment 2150224

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).

View attachment 2150228
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.

View attachment 2150244

So, you admit that all evidence you have is useless?

View attachment 2150246
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.

View attachment 2150248
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.

View attachment 2150261

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.

View attachment 2150266

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.View attachment 2150291
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.

View attachment 2150303

View attachment 2150314
1. District court cases are 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 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.
View attachment 2150333
Mockery is perfectly legal and allowed by the Supreme Court (see for example Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988 ) )View attachment 2150338
Incorrect. No authorization was given to mock, although admittedly, he probably does not mind. That being said, mockery is not illegal.
View attachment 2150344
Gersh is non-precedental.

View attachment 2150350

For this to be applicable, Null would have had to waive his protections in court, not outside it.

View attachment 2150355
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


View attachment 2150368

As the court very well should.

View attachment 2150380

True. Skordas miscited the argument of defense as the court's ruling.

View attachment 2150383
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.
View attachment 2150387
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.

View attachment 2150391

That's not what happened here, however. As such the argument fails.

View attachment 2150401
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.

View attachment 2150409
It is a fact though. You even got convicted during said court "date".

View attachment 2150413
Russ just proved us correct that it was factual, and correct.

View attachment 2150417
View attachment 2150422
View attachment 2150418
Russ just lied to the court, and admitted that he did.

View attachment 2150423
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) )

View attachment 2150428
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.

View attachment 2150432
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.

View attachment 2150437
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.

Hope you enjoyed reading it. It took a long time to write.

TLDR: Russ made 1 good point. All the rest were completely garbage.

I really enjoyed this and your last analysis. It’s very much appreciated. Semper fi and all that.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

I really enjoyed this and your last analysis. It’s very much appreciated. Semper fi and all that.

Thanks! I'm very glad to hear it!

 

[Andrew Neiman]

Now having watched the stream, I have to say it's far more coherent than the last one. Nick is still drunker than makes for optimum viewing, but he does offer a useful commentary. In my view, the main issue with this one is that he interrupts too often to read super chats.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Now having watched the stream, I have to say it's far more coherent than the last one. Nick is still drunker than makes for optimum viewing, but he does offer a useful commentary. In my view, the main issue with this one is that he interrupts too often to read super chats.

Haven't watched his vid yet, but due to having watched a lot of his vids, I can see where you're comming from. Imo his streams usually aren't as bad as his last Russ one (although it was still pretty funny), but, yeah, he prioritizes engagement with chat over everything. Personally, I think that in most streams he does a good balance of both, but then again, many people just like to get all info asap and not listen to an hour long rant about how Australians are a sin against god. If you want more "to the point" version of his vids, either look in the comments for timestamps, or wait until he makes a followup video where he says all the important info in 10-15 mins and that's it(although he only does this for important topics).

 

[Drowningman]

The Erika texts show his typical MO, first "Im a great guy" "let me cash app you" "Lets go out as friends"then the "Its my disability" crap. Im glad a fellow Kiwi found the link to the text.It filled in a lot of the Erika saga.
Id bet that in the past he has cash apped a few ig thots and got no responce.
His latest filing only proves that he thinks he is a great legal mind when in reality,he is an ignorant fool.

 

[DrJonesHat]

not listen to an hour long rant about how Australians are a sin against god

That sounds like some cutting-edge theology. How did he arrive at that conclusion?

The Erika texts show his typical MO, first "Im a great guy" "let me cash app you" "Lets go out as friends"then the "Its my disability" crap. Im glad a fellow Kiwi found the link to the text.It filled in a lot of the Erika saga.
Id bet that in the past he has cash apped a few ig thots and got no responce.
His latest filing only proves that he thinks he is a great legal mind when in reality,he is an ignorant fool.

He's proof of the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." He knows the process for submitting a suit to the courts, but beyond that, he's clueless. He can't state a claim, he doesn't know how the Constitution works, and he seems rather fuzzy on the whole "free speech" thing.

 

[Constellationzero]

I just wanted to highlight this footnote from the whole document because it's just so beautiful. He can't help himself.
View attachment 2149707
View attachment 2149704
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?

Even Greer's defense attorney for that case thought Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

thought Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

were on the very edge of harassment

edge of harassment

This. Fucking. Guy.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That sounds like some cutting-edge theology. How did he arrive at that conclusion?

I genuinly don't remember. It was in the last Russel stream. IIRC, it was a joke, but for some reason it stuck in my head.

 

[DumbDude42]

Even Greer's defense attorney for that case thought Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

thought Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

Greer's actions were on the very edge of harassment

were on the very edge of harassment

edge of harassment

This. Fucking. Guy.

he basically straight up says "even my own lawyer didn't really believe in my innocence" and thinks that's a win for him lol

 

[StinkySnack]

Is no one going to comment on the fact that Russell asked this judge to either strike down the CDA as unconstitutional, or to make an exception to it just this one time for him?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Is no one going to comment on the fact that Russell asked this judge to either strike down the CDA as unconstitutional, or to make an exception to it just this one time for him?

Tbf, everyone already did when he filed his original complaint. Right now it's just Russel repeating the same bull (that I am pretty sure he copypasted from his original complaint), so there's not that much new stuff to make fun in regards to the CDA, Imo

 

[StinkySnack]

Tbf, everyone already did when he filed his original complaint. Right now it's just Russel repeating the same bull (that I am pretty sure he copypasted from his original complaint), so there's not that much new stuff to make fun in regards to the CDA, Imo

Oops. Must have missed that in the original filing.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

he basically straight up says "even my own lawyer didn't really believe in my innocence" and thinks that's a win for him lol

That right there ought to clue in anybody that it's a frivolous lawsuit. When your actual lawyer, the guy you're paying to represent you, tells you that you have no case then it's time to re-examine your life.

But we all know that that's never going to happen. Pipsqueak thinks he's the most brilliant legal eagle out there. Although if he had any self awareness he'd realize that they're lawyers and he's just a paralegal.