Cultcow Russell Greer / @ 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

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

With every filing Russ does it gets more and more like a rant over some social media messaging service.

It is a rant. He's tattling to a higher authority and is expecting that authority to bend his way. This entire filing is the legal equivalent of him stamping his foot and screaming "It's not fair!"

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Spoiler: Analysis of Russell's motion

Subjectively believing your action to be filed in Good Faith, does not necessarily mean it was filled in Good Faith, and filing motions that contain irrelevant arguments (such as whining about Kiwi Farms' actions towards non-parties who are not relevant to the case) can be found to have been made in bad faith, and sanctioned (Jack A. Braley, D.O. v. Garland CAMPBELL, M.D., 832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987), Robert H. Ketchum v. Salvador Cruz, M.D., Spanish Peaks Mental Health Center, 961 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992), Jane Niehaus and Joyce Neumann v. Kansas Bar Association, John Gardner, and Marcia Poell, 793 F.2d 1159 (10th Cir. 1986), etc.)




I think Russ did an excellent job defeating his own argument. Reminder, this contradiction is only a paragraph apart.
To the extent that he alleges he was harmed by "Kiwi Farms" "st[ealing his intellectual property", one might find it interesting that he never sued Kiwi Farms for stealing his copyright, merely for alleged contribution of such stealing. This contradiction would constitute bad faith as per Graff v. Aberdeen Enterprizes II, Inc., 4:17-CV-606-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Sep. 20, 2018 ). His "defamed" comment suffers the same fault, given he has acknowledged he has no cause to sue neither Null, nor Kiwi Farms itself



There are better citations then "law.com" such as mayhaps Rule 7, 8, 10 of FRCP. That being said, a brief being filed that serves no other purpose than to supplement a complaint, is by necessity, supplementing a complaint. Anyhow, you filed that "memorandum brief" via rule 15, rule all about supplemental pleadings, of which complaints are a part (rule 7). Given the above mentioned information, one could easily see how Skordas saw this as nothing more than an attempt to supplement your complaint. Any how, whatever this would be, it is still futile and should be dismissed (Earles v. Cleveland, 825 Fed.Appx. 544, 552 (10th Cir. 2020))


Plaintiff has withdrawn any Harassment elements



Skordas is not suing you. You are suing his client



Note the should and can. Either way, ABA is not binding law, merely a guideline.



The law is not concerned about whatever or not you believe you can win, only that there is a "substantial likelihood" that you will win. See, for example, Equitable Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., 434 F. Supp. 3d 1227 (D. Utah 2020)



You did not show that. You at best alleged it, without being able to provide anything substantial to back it up.


After looking over the docket I can only assume he means docket number 14 (the only one (by a judge) in January), which notably did not say anything even close to that. See for yourself.

He very neatly puts it here that this motion was indeed filed in bad faith/frivolously.

Sorry for somewhat shorter review, but this time there wasn't much bone to analyze, and you can only point out he's wrong so many times.

 

[redbarchetta]

"It's like a shark smelling blood. When Greer's name is mentioned, it's like Skordas is summoned to answer the call of duty."

That was great - Skordas should make t-shirts.

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

The longer this goes on the funnier it gets.

I'm not even a law sperg and I can tell that the writing in this is just ridiculous. Pipsqueak is desperate to get a win here. Any kind of win. And he will do everything in his power to get one even if it means perjuring himself and making stuff up.

 

[Meredith Swift]

That was great - Skordas should make t-shirts.

Call of Skordas: GayOps

 

[DrJonesHat]

That was great - Skordas should make t-shirts.

He should use the whole line as a marketing slogan. In fairness to Russ, since he did come up with it, Skordas should buy the rights to it.

Is he expecting the judge to order Skordas off the suit? Can a judge even do that? Anyway, all his arguments about lawyers not bringing harassing suits is moot, because as was pointed out, Russ is suing Null. Skordas is representing Null. Null is entitled to his choice of legal representation. Russ is basically screaming "IT'S NOT FAIR HE GETS A LAWYER AND I DON'T!"

 

[Kumquat]

I always love reading the replies here to Russell's legal filings. They're just as entertaining as the filings themselves.

This latest filing is just Russell stamping his feet harder and slurping "BUT JUDGE! IT'S NOT FAIR! JOSH IS BEING REALLY MEAN TO ME!"

People like Russell never cease to amaze me, because they never make the connection that they are treated rudely because they themselves are not nice people. Even without the Narcissism, seeing the mental gymnastics these people perform to try and explain how, no, actually, they're really nice and everyone else is just being unfair is endlessly entertaining.

Russell is especially entertaining because he's such a disgusting person both inside and out and yet he remains utterly convinced that he's just such a swell guy and everyone else is treating him unfairly. These filings are just him grasping at straws to try and make himself a victim without ever realizing that the law doesn't give a shit about anything he's saying. Was a crime committed or not? That's all that matters.

 

[Pee Cola]

Did Russ accidently admit that this was filed in bad faith? 'Cause it's supposed to be "couldn't be". This implies that Skordas was spot on
View attachment 2519142

Russhole is probably one of those fucktards that says "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less".

Just because Russhole finds Null "repugnant", it doesn't mean that Skordas (or anybody else) has to.

If he really wants the judge to let him explain in person, he wouldn't have shot his explaining load all over his court documents.

Has Null ever allegedly engaged in "condemned actions" against Skordas or his family?

Has Null ever allegedly engaged in stalking and harassment campaigns, which involve threats of rape and dismemberment, against Skordas or his family?

Unless the answer to these questions is "yes", then I don't see the conflict of interest here.

How do allegations of Null's website being "connected to many suicides", along with alleged links to paedophilia and targeting children with online threats, constitute a conflict of interest for Skordas? If such actions caused a conflict of interest, this means that it would be impossible for anyone ever accused of such actions to hire a defense attorney. Although to his credit, Russhole has thought of this:

I'm not a lawyer but last time I checked, the legal system didn't give a shit whether a lawyer was representing a client in a civil matter or a criminal matter.

I'm still not a lawyer but I'm of the opinion that a reasonable person may consider a person that has filed four lawsuits to be a "serial litigant", especially when said reasonable person has never had cause to file a lawsuit in their life.

Russhole has done a great job of ruining his reputation on his own.

The only guilty party here IMHO is Russhole, and he's guilty of filing unintentionally hilarious court documents. The phoneposted "exhibits" are a cherry on top. *chef's kiss*

 

[RussianParasite]

Yes. I too remember when Null told the NZ government to go “fricck” themselves. Lol, this droopy-faced bitch can’t even censor naughty words correctly despite being raised as a good Mormon boy.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Can a judge even do that?

Yes. It'd be a motion to disqualify opposing counsel. If you are interested in how it works in Utah, you can find more about it here, here, here, and here.

@Pee Cola , yes, technically under Utah law Russ could be considered a serial (vexatious even) litigant if the court chose to view him as such. Utah is fairly laxed on these sort of things.

 

[Miami]

To Gaslight means making them doubt reality which is the opposite of what they are doing, Russell, since your flaws being pointed out have been set in real life (not your fantasy world) and led to your very much real conviction.

You can't suffer much real harms when you accidentally upload your full works yourself and don't notice until you come crawling around later, and you should know well enough by now that when you post something on the internet it's going to stay around for as long as there's a copy of it somewhere on the interwebs.

You shoot yourself in the misshapen feet on a daily basis and even your best attempts at being professional with your PAC are slowly degenerating into your usual gross, sex entitled behavior where you believe you can dictate what others believe and choose what is right and what is wrong.

It's a rule that KF users don't interact with the cows, and most of your smackdowns come from people not even related to the forums.

Why would anybody represent boss-pants? Why, money! You know, that thing you squander away on hookers and stupid hooker-gaining antics. At the bottom line, regardless of how many times he's been up against you in the past, Skordas is a lawyer taking a JOB. You know, to bring himself a income, like most of the world needs.

Also, reality shows that most of the US doesn't give a shit about the "condemned actions", there's plenty of private lawyers out there who make their living defending murderers and everybody else on that side of the law.

You know damn well if there weren't and everybody could just toss that shit aside you'd be one of the people without a lawyer in the rare times you've actually gotten someone who knows what they're doing to assist you from trying to dig out of the hole you've dug. You don't have the money to hire an actual, quality lawyer and have to go with what is supplied when you can't shoehorn yourself in to try and spout your plights at the judge and jury.

You've never sued anybody in good faith, Russell. You've never tried to meet someone out of good faith, either. Good faith would have been you genuinely wanting to meet them because of their help to the community or because you respect them, not because you think you're entitled to their pussy and can make them into your house slave when they "deny you your civil rights" by not replying or having their agents turn you down.

 

[L. Ron Hubbard's Cat]

It's not fair. Make Josh let Russ win! Russ tried really hard, you guys. It's just not fair that he just keeps losing. Josh and Greg must be cheating somehow. Also, make Greg stop being friends with Josh because Josh is mean. He shouldn't be allowed to have friends. Greg should get grounded for being friends with such a mean old poopyhead instead of being friends with Russ. No one else likes Josh, so Greg must only be friends with Josh because they both hate Russ. It's so unfair. They're ganging up on Russ, probably because Russ is disabled. Russ never did anything wrong and should be allowed to win this case, just like he should have been allowed to win all the cases because his feelings got hurt and Taylor Swift was mean and Adriana was mean and everyone's mean and won't just make Russ famous and give him a girlfriend. MAKE THEM BE NICE TO RUSS AND GIVE HIM WHAT HE WANTS!

Ahem.

I really need to know who these mysterious "people close to Greer" are. His family? His friends? His therapist? People he meets on the bus? The voices in his head? Do they exist at all, or is he just trying to say that he thinks Skordas is out to get him, but wants to polish it up to make it seem more legitimate somehow? Why does he think the judge cares at all what unnamed, uninvolved parties speculate the motivations of a lawyer might be?

I have so many questions just on this point alone.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Just because Russhole finds Null "repugnant", it doesn't mean that Skordas (or anybody else has to).

First he says lawyers shouldn't represent "repugnant" litigants.


Then he admits he can't find a lawyer to represent him.

 

[Cilleystring]

Best line in any Greer filing

"Skordas obviously feels impassioned to take on any case involving Plaintiff. It's like a shark smelling blood. When Greer's name in mentioned, it's like Skordas is summoned to answer the call of duty."

 

[Empyrea]

@Useful_Mistake

Subjectively believing your action to be filed in Good Faith, does not necessarily mean it was filled in Good Faith,

B-But one says good and the other says bad. Russel is good and Evil Kiwi Farms is bad, so he can only be acting in good faith.

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

tfw you cite clickbait articles in your court docs

 

[Constellationzero]

First he says Skordas is harassing him.
Then he says that Skordas should recuse because Russell Godfrick Greer says Josh is repugnant.
Then he says Skordas has beef with him, so it's a conflict of interest.
And then he forgot to mention that he stalked and harassed Skordas's daughter.

A WOO HOO HOO

 

[SunburnNation]

"Lawyers have the choice of whether or not to take on a client, therefore Skordas is harassing me by not rejecting business from Null because of all these insults I just said about him."
Uh-huh. Very legally sound. You're definitely not going to have this thrown out before trial like every other suit you've ever been in. Oh, except for that one suit where you pled guilty to stalking a woman. Wait, no, that one didn't go to trial either. Because you pled guilty. Because you had a lawyer for that one and he, using his actual law knowledge, told you that you were going to get convicted so you may as well try and get off easy.

 

[Meat Target]

"Plaintiff is not trying to supplement his case." Then what hell is the point of this brief? To show how Perry Mason ain't got nothin' on the Greermeister?

And then he forgot to mention that he stalked and harassed Skordas's daughter.

Whaaat? When did that happen? Storytime me!

 

[360NoTrope]

Damn Kiwi trolls emailing my employers!