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

[AnOminous]

The law on peddling/soliciting applies to selling goods or services, so wouldn't apply to him. I think his activity would probably violate the university's rule against fundraising though, unless he got permission.

The university policy explicitly says "fliers of a political or nonprofit nature" and forbids their distribution outside the designated area of the university mall.

This doesn’t address the argument about whether “public colleges” have to allow anyone into their grounds.

People often confuse things that are customary with things to which they are legally entitled. There are small public universities contained in a single building that completely exclude the public by requiring keycard access. There is simply no room in such a space for random public access. People also confuse a space being publicly accessible with it being a space where political speech is allowed to the general public. Go into a Post Office and start ranting about LaRouche and see how long you stay in there.

Anyway we've gone far afield.

tl;dr as it relates to Russ specifically. He'll be allowed to pass out his tard pamphlets in the university mall. If he goes outside it and does the same, they may remove him. If he violates other university policies or harasses women specifically, he'll be removed and they'll ban him from campus. If he shows up after that, there's a good chance of him being arrested.

 

[️ronic]

Thirstposting(?) even with his PAC account.



Unfortunately, that middle tweet is lost to time.

 

[moocow]

You will very occasionally see foreign court decisions cited in American courts but they have no binding authority. They might have "persuasive authority," i.e. the court finds the reasoning cited by the court convincing, but obviously, any contrary binding authority forbids using it.

My favorite example of this was the breathtakingly brutal ruling handed down by a Canadian appellate court in Meads v. Meads (2012), which thoroughly sodomized sine lubricatae the whole sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land movement and all its retardedation. The judge who wrote it is so unashamedly based I have doubts that he's a natural-born Canadian citizen. There's not even a single apology in the 177-page decision. WTF, eh?

As of 2018 it's been cited over two hundred times by other Canadian courts and has had far reaching impact even outside Canada. It's been cited by US courts, too. As you point out, there's no binding authority, but e.g. a district court in Illinois found it handy to cite Meads in a ruling and there's quite a few others too.

There's been a bit of whining here and there (ironically from a Human Rights Tribunal-adjacent advocacy group, who objected to it on oddly familiar grounds and -- quelle surprise -- that paper turned out to be authored by yet another sovcit) but by and large it's served as a very good "manual" about those idiots and how to deal with them. It's a great read, too. Every year since it was published, it's been in the top 3 most-retrieved rulings in Canada's entire court system, with way more views than you'd expect if only attorneys and judges were reading it. It's just that good.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

Excuse me you philistine, the proper title of Russell‘s legal masterpiece is “Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks.”

Just another example of Russ addressing the Men in Charge -- in this case, fathers -- rather than the non-persons involved in the actual sex work.

It's a bit like asking a man permission to marry his daughter, only he's making a case as to why it's all logical and proper for her to be his literal whore. Because he's disabled, you see. So send him your daughters or face his lolsuits.

I very sincerely hope that actual sex work advocates get a copy of this book. They need to know what a dangerously entitled, delusional trainwreck he is and protect their reputations (and their sex-worker clients) from him.

My favorite example of this was the breathtakingly brutal ruling handed down by a Canadian appellate court in Meads v. Meads (2012), which thoroughly sodomized sine lubricatae the whole sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land movement and all its retardedation. The judge who wrote it is so unashamedly based I have doubts that he's a natural-born Canadian citizen. There's not even a single apology in the 177-page decision. WTF, eh?

As of 2018 it's been cited over two hundred times by other Canadian courts and has had far reaching impact even outside Canada. It's been cited by US courts, too. As you point out, there's no binding authority, but e.g. a district court in Illinois found it handy to cite Meads in a ruling and there's quite a few others too.

There's been a bit of whining here and there (ironically from a Human Rights Tribunal-adjacent advocacy group, who objected to it on oddly familiar grounds and -- quelle surprise -- that paper turned out to be authored by yet another sovcit) but by and large it's served as a very good "manual" about those idiots and how to deal with them. It's a great read, too. Every year since it was published, it's been in the top 3 most-retrieved rulings in Canada's entire court system, with way more views than you'd expect if only attorneys and judges were reading it. It's just that good.

I'm not even a lawfag and I've read that. I actually laughed out loud once or twice, just at the judge's tone.

 

[the khat quaffer]

Aw c’mon, I was hoping we could transition into some more “creative” names for Russ. Those are the posts I find the most engaging!!! Quality content!

"Hey you in the bushes"

 

[Captain Syrup]

"Hey you in the bushes"

 

[AnOminous]

My favorite example of this was the breathtakingly brutal ruling handed down by a Canadian appellate court in Meads v. Meads (2012), which thoroughly sodomized sine lubricatae the whole sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land movement and all its retardedation. The judge who wrote it is so unashamedly based I have doubts that he's a natural-born Canadian citizen. There's not even a single apology in the 177-page decision. WTF, eh?

I advise anyone who is amused by sovcits and their lunacy to read this.

 

[Captain Syrup]

I advise anyone who is amused by sovcits and their lunacy to read this.

I dO nOt CoNsEnT tO tHiS pRoCeEdInG!

 

[Empyrea]

I advise anyone who is amused by sovcits and their lunacy to read this.

Seriously, thank you all for linking and recommending this. I love SovCit nonsense.

"When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid." Based judge.

 

[Kosher Salt]

The university policy explicitly says "fliers of a political or nonprofit nature" and forbids their distribution outside the designated area of the university mall.

You think he successfully went to Kinkos and got fliers printed? That sounds on the ambitious side, for him. I assumed he was just tardsplaining his plights and asking for signatures/donations.

People often confuse things that are customary with things to which they are legally entitled. There are small public universities contained in a single building that completely exclude the public by requiring keycard access. There is simply no room in such a space for random public access. People also confuse a space being publicly accessible with it being a space where political speech is allowed to the general public. Go into a Post Office and start ranting about LaRouche and see how long you stay in there.

There's a good distinction here. The government cannot engage in "viewpoint discrimination." It can, entirely reasonably, say "no political speech/protests/demonstrations inside of the Post Office." That restricts activity in a viewpoint-neutral way; the rule applies to everyone, no matter what your political viewpoint is. But the Post Office wouldn't be able to say "political speech is fine, just not that political speech." That would be viewpoint discrimination.

 

[artilleryfroth]

Hey I’ve tried searching the thread with no luck - does anyone know if the Greer book is still online anywhere? That sovcit case gave me a taste for reading about freaks. The Rekeita recap is just too long for my tastes.

 

[StinkySnack]

Ever dreamed of meeting The Russell Greer in person to assist in his Very Important Work (TM)?
View attachment 2463851
Original / Archive

That's right ladies, no rules in this group. Feel free to help yourselves!

A little late here, but how did you find this? You're a post-merge member with zero posts in this thread and zero credibility. For all we know, you made this group yourself.

I think you should explain how you came upon it.

 

[Su-27 Flanker-B]

Is it safe to assume russ has been thrown into facebook jail again? The silence is deafening.

 

[AnOminous]

There's a good distinction here. The government cannot engage in "viewpoint discrimination."

Yes, I've said that repeatedly. Once a space is designated as (or traditionally always has been) a public forum, the First Amendment is in full force. If Russ stayed in the public forum area, and they excluded him for his viewpoint, he would have the basis for his first valid lawsuit in his life.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Hey I’ve tried searching the thread with no luck - does anyone know if the Greer book is still online anywhere? That sovcit case gave me a taste for reading about freaks. The Rekeita recap is just too long for my tastes.

"Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans"

"Why I Sued Taylor Swift: and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy" (Edit: Better PDF version)

Didn't know which one you wanted, so here are both of them

 

[Constellationzero]

"Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans"

"Why I Sued Taylor Swift: and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy"

Didn't know which one you wanted, so here are both of them

Yes, I've said that repeatedly. Once a space is designated as (or traditionally always has been) a public forum, the First Amendment is in full force. If Russ stayed in the public forum area, and they excluded him for his viewpoint, he would have the basis for his first valid lawsuit in his life.

First of all: Thanks for the zip files. Already had the Taylor Swift Tard book, but I didn't know the brothel manifesto was also on Google Drive. Much appreciated!

You're right on the public forum thing, but this is Russell Greer. He can't even seem to manage a job interview without getting into everyone's bad graces and teasing a possible additional stalking charge--especially if the interviewer is a woman. I have faith Pipsqueak would totally screw up his one opportunity for a legitimate court case. Would be even funnier if Skordas showed up again... like a bad penny.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Much appreciated!

You're welcome.

 

[artilleryfroth]

"Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans"

"Why I Sued Taylor Swift: and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy" (Edit: Better PDF version)

Didn't know which one you wanted, so here are both of them

Thank you, legend! He is every bit the rapey psycho that I already thought he was. I do recommend both of these reads to anyone who isn’t 100% hating him yet. He is so foul.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Thank you, legend!

You're welcome.

 

[DrJonesHat]

"Why I'm Making It Legal for Your 18 Year Old Daughter to Get In Bed with a Complete Stranger for Only 500 Bucks: A Short Essay from a Pro Se Litigant who is Challenging the Utah Brothel Bans"

"Why I Sued Taylor Swift: and How I Became Falsely Known as Frivolous, Litigious and Crazy" (Edit: Better PDF version)

Didn't know which one you wanted, so here are both of them

The Taylor Swift book is the Great American Novel I tell you! Yeah, I know he says it's a true story, but anyone with an IQ above 85 knows most of it is very exaggerated, and parts are completely made up. If he had any money, I'm sure Taylor Swift would sue, but since he doesn't, it's not worth giving him recognition. If she sued him for libel, he'd turn around and say, "SEE?! It's true otherwise why would she be suing me?!"