🐮 Lolcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / Russell Greee / Russle / Brothel Prince / @ 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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The complaint is less tarded than others because it’s ChatGPT. There’s a lot more public ally available material on constitutional questions so ChatGPT will ape reality better. Some of his cites are still wrong.
 
The Nevada Court comes now and says:
Screw you guys, I'm going home. Good luck to whoever gets this turd assigned to them.
2026-02-19_15-30.png
 
DavidS877 said:
The Nevada Court comes now and says:
Screw you guys, I'm going home. Good luck to whoever gets this turd assigned to them.
Click to expand...
"I looked up this Plaintiff, and I am in danger of strangling him if he appears before me. Find someone with more patience."

Edit: I looked up Boulware to see if there was any conflict of interest, past representation of the State, etc; nothing interesting. However, a month after Greer filed this suit, Boulware made headlines as one of the activist judges releasing murderers about to be deported.

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — A battle is underway about the release of a convicted murderer with ties to the MS-13 gang who previously entered the United States illegally. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Boulware II ordered the release of Harvey Laureano Rosales, 54, by Jan. 22.

In his Jan. 21 order, Boulware said the federal government violated Rosales’ due process rights in multiple ways, and noted he acknowledges Rosales’ criminal history, “while also acknowledging that he has served a lengthy sentence and been paroled for these crimes.”

Rosales is a citizen and national of El Salvador who entered the U.S. illegally at the age of 16 in 1987, became a member of MS-13, and spent more than half of his life incarcerated in the U.S., according to Boulware’s order.

Rosales was convicted of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon, all deemed gang-related, in 1997. He received multiple life sentences, spent more than 25 years in prison, where he joined the Mexican Mafia prison gang, and was granted parole in November 2022, court documents show. Immigration authorities civilly detained Rosales by April 2023, according to court documents.

Rosales’ criminal history also includes 1996 convictions in California for possession/selling a sawed-off shotgun, and possession/manufacturing/selling a dangerous weapon, a 1997 arrest in Iowa for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver and carry a concealed weapon, and another 1997 arrest in Colorado for illegal entry, court documents show.

Boulware wrote in his order that Rosales was no longer affiliated with MS-13 or the Mexican Mafia prison gang at the time of his release from prison.

Rosales was ordered removed to El Salvador after being paroled. He was then taken into ICE custody and has been detained for two and a half years, Boulware wrote.

...In his Jan. 21 order, Boulware ordered Rosales’ immediate release and prohibited the federal government from removing him, “to Mexico, or any other third country, until he has received due process in the form of a full adjudication of his fear-based claims before an immigration judge and any subsequent appeals.”
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if this is really nitpicky.

According to the FCRP, the day of service (January 28th) is day 0. That makes February 19th day 21, not February 18. His motion is premature (and stupid).
 
obsdj said:
Two.

Female.

Judges.

Pardon me while I lie here DED.
Click to expand...
They’re going to love the subject matter. I’m not accusing them of being bias but something tells me they aren’t going to tardshield at all. Even the most liberal libfems are going to have issues with his cause, especially if they see him or look him up at all.

Edit: My dear Mrs Bouquet, nitpicking is the very essence of litigation.
 
DavidS877 said:
The Nevada Court comes now and says:
Screw you guys, I'm going home. Good luck to whoever gets this turd assigned to them.
View attachment 8583297
Click to expand...
"Oh no, it's this fucking idiot that sued to be given a participation award from AGT."

Docket for Greer v. Fremantle Productions, 2:21-cv-01905 - CourtListener.com

Docket for Greer v. Fremantle Productions, 2:21-cv-01905 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com www.courtlistener.com
 
"Ishnt it shad that they are demolishing the broshel? *drool*"
"Yeah sure that's a shame, please stop talking to me creep"

WINNEMUCA IS GREATLY LAMENTING THE LOSS OF THEIR BELOVED BROTHEL!
 
DavidS877 said:
Interestingly Nevada(state) rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, indicates that you must serve both the individual as well as the Attorney General.
FRCP 4e seems to indicate that since it is a state law that Greee would have needed to follow that process even though it was filed in Federal court.
So service may not be proper.
View attachment 8582955

FRCP 4j looks like it could be more relevant:
View attachment 8582972
Presumably since he did not serve the Governor he would need to follow state law. I suppose it depends on if the Secretary Of State is the head of a governmental organization or not.
Click to expand...

Interesting question, let's see what the AI has to say:

Prompt: "On the basis of FRCP 4e and 4j, would Nevada state's Civil Procedure Rule 4 apply regarding a citizen of Nevada brining a civil lawsuit against an individual acting in their capacity as an official of the state of Nevada in the US district court of Nevada?"

Response:

Applicability of Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure under FRCP 4(e) and 4(j)​

Summary ConclusionYes, Nevada’s state rules for civil procedure regarding service of process (specifically the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, or NRCP, Rule 4 and its localized sub-rules) would apply as a valid mechanism for effectuating service in this federal lawsuit. Because both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4(e) and FRCP 4(j) contain "borrowing" provisions that explicitly authorize the use of state-level service protocols, a plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada may lawfully utilize Nevada state procedures to serve a state official.

Legal Analysis: Official-Capacity Suits and Service of Process​

When a plaintiff brings a civil action in a federal district court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedural mechanics. However, determining exactly how to serve a state official acting in an "official capacity" presents a recognized doctrinal ambiguity within federal jurisprudence, including within the Ninth Circuit (which holds appellate jurisdiction over the District of Nevada).

Under foundational Supreme Court precedent (Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985)), a suit against a state official in their official capacity is generally treated not as a suit against the individual, but as a suit against the official's office, rendering it effectively a suit against the state itself. Despite this, the statutory text of the FRCP does not explicitly dictate how this classification translates to the physical service of a summons. This leaves federal courts to evaluate two potential procedural pathways:

  • FRCP 4(e) – Serving an Individual: If a court categorizes the state official as an "individual" for the strict, mechanical purpose of process service, FRCP 4(e) governs.
  • FRCP 4(j)(2) – Serving a State or Local Government: If a court categorizes the official-capacity suit strictly as an action against a state-created governmental organization, FRCP 4(j)(2) governs.

The FRCP "Borrowing" Provisions​

The Ninth Circuit has not issued a strict, binding mandate squarely resolving whether state officials sued in their official capacity must be served strictly as individuals under FRCP 4(e) or strictly as public entities under FRCP 4(j).

However, this doctrinal circuit split is frequently rendered practically moot because both rules explicitly permit a plaintiff to satisfy federal service requirements by adhering to the state laws of the jurisdiction where the district court is located.

  1. Invocation via FRCP 4(e)(1): If treated as an individual, this rule expressly permits service by "following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located."
  2. Invocation via FRCP 4(j)(2)(B): If treated as a state entity, this rule allows a state, municipal corporation, or other state-created organization to be served by "serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant."

Application of Nevada State Law (NRCP 4)​

Because the federal district court is located in Nevada, the "borrowing" clauses of both FRCP 4(e) and 4(j) reliably direct the plaintiff back to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following the 2019 amendments to the NRCP, Nevada reorganized its service rules. The specific protocols for serving the state and its officers are delineated under the umbrella of NRCP Rule 4, and specifically codified within NRCP Rule 4.2(j) (Serving the State and Its Public Entities and Political Subdivisions; Serving Public Employees).

To effectively utilize this state-law pathway in a federal district court, a plaintiff must strictly comply with the granular requirements of NRCP 4.2(j), which typically necessitates serving multiple parties to ensure due process, such as:

  • Delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Nevada Attorney General (or a designated proxy within that office).
  • Delivering a copy to the specific public officer or the head of the specific state agency being sued.

Looks like you hit the nail on the head, DavidS877!

His service was deficient. As such, his emergency motion automatically fails.

Eat it, rat face!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom