Unironically, this is true. My political opinions are probably the polar opposite of most on here, but the fact that we can freely express ourselves, agree, disagree, and call eachother faggots here is a beautiful thing.
Neat. Just a few lines on each point, showing that his filings are every bit as deficient as Greer himself.
My bet is he's not cheap, but he also looks like he's doing his best to keep this efficient, which tends to end up being cheaper than it might otherwise be.
Skordas was able to get attorney's fees awarded to him in the Ariana Grande lawsuit. Russhole did eventually make good on that debt (either by himself of through the Bank of Mom and Dad), based on his bitching about having to pay those and trying to call them "fines". I'm hoping Based Skordas will file for fees and be granted them again when Russhole's current lolsuit is also inevitably dismissed. Considering resolving this lolsuit is going to be more involved than a mere small claims suit like the AG situation, any reasonable award of fees will wipe out Russhole's hooker funds for a long ass time, and his chimping out about having to pay fees to his nemesis Based Skordas again will be truly glorious.
Something that many insane people who use the internet are keen to take away. It’s quite startling how many advocates for free speech are more than happy to remove it from those they dislike.
Probably better value in the long run, though. Even if Skordas' hourly rate is higher, I suspect there are fewer billable hours due to his experience with such cases (and the Plaintiff). If he's able to extract costs out of Russhole, even better.
I'm pretty sure that there's nothing to stop you filing for fees if you had to expend money to hire and attorney to respond in general.
Not great. While the courts do have the power to label and punish vexatious litigants (Anant Kumar Tripati v. William C. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) ), you have to be a Supreme Retard to be declared one. For example, David K. Shuffman had "during the past three years has inundated this Court with more than a hundred motions, petitions, requests, appeals and other filings, virtually all of which have been utterly frivolous, totally devoid of merit, obviously repetitive and demonstrably vexatious." and only then did he get declared vexatious litigant and punished via filing injuctions (In the Matter of Hartford Textile Corporation, Oxford Chemicals, Inc., Wellington Print Works, Inc., Debtors. Rose Shuffman, as of the Estate of Oscar Shuffman v. Hartford Textile Corporation, Oxford Chemicals, Inc., Wellington Print Works, Inc., 681 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1982) (while it is a second circuit case, the tenth circuit has used this ruling in many tenth circuit cases (for example Anant Kumar Tripati v. William C. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989) ). As another example in Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, of Joseph Harp's Correctional Center, Respondent- Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden Unknown Named Warden of Jess Dunn Correctional Center Gary Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. State of Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center Gary Maynard, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections State of Oklahoma, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Sam Preston, Unit Manager Jack Cowley, Warden, Joseph Harp Correctional Center, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley Joann Shepard, Health Administrator D. Bradley, Dental Assistant Dr. R.L. Warren, Dentist, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Jack Cowley, Warden Gary Maynard, Director, D.O.C. Henry Bellmon, Oklahoma State Governor Robert MacY District Attorney Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board Members Clarence Harkins, Jr. Augusta E. Mann, Marzee Douglass, Carl B. Hamm, Farrell Hatch, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. State of Oklahoma William F. Yeager, Warden Gary F. Maynard, Director for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Bernie Bishop, Principal and Leisure Library Supervisor Janice Brewer, Law Librarian, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Bernie Bishop, Supervisor William F. Yeager, Warden, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. William F. Yeager, Warden John Wilson, Unit Manager Sergeant Wheats, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. William F. Yeager, Warden John S. Wilson, Unit Manager G.D. Lowe, Property- Officer, Raymond Herschel Johnson, Sr. v. Mark Shipman, Correctional Case Manager 2cd, 872 F.2d 342 (10th Cir. 1989) the "petitioner has commenced fifty-four cases in the court's original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed" before he was punished. You'll find that similar numbers are present in almost all vexatious litigant cases.
Increasingly desperate, made a new account to message me, when he eventually read my message calling him out he deleted the profile
I recall hearing of some where they got declared vexatious after filing just 7-9 bogus lawsuits.
I'm sorry but "i'm gonna cum in your pretty mouth" and "boyfriend experience" don't really mesh for me.
Curious - there is "defamation per se" (in which the statements are presumably harmful enough that damages don't have to be proven) - I'm guessing that Russell either didn't know how the law works, or wasn't able to find anything to go on with that:
Some states are more strict then others in regards to declaration of vexatious status. Utah, for example, requires a lot effort (as I showed in those examples). As another example, let's take Virginia's recent Supreme Court case (Adkins v. CP/IPERS Arlington Hotel, 160685(Va. 2017) in which plaintiff had made 89 lawsuits in 8 years, and in 2017 was punished with a pre-filling injuction. While I can't say I know what case you are talking about (if you find it, let me know) usually courts are not as strict (in Utah and outside it) as the case you heard of.
They also don't know what defamation is. Cause most of the "defamation" is mocking them for openly saying stupid shit. A lot of cows seem to think that when you screenshot and archive what they say, they should have the right to remove it because they are ashamed.
If he's suing Null himself, he might be able to state defamation per se if Null himself called him a pedophile, child predator, rapist, or something like that (but I don't think Null ever did, and Section 230 gives liability to site owners for defamatory comments posted by users) - he'd have to track down and sue every individual KF member who he claims "defamed" him.
