Greer v. Aguilar, 2:25-cv-02581 - Another lawsuit from Greer, this time it's about whores

  • 🏰 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

Greer v. Aguilar 2:25-cv-02581 — District Court, D. Nevada

  • Docket No.
    2:25-cv-02581
  • Court
    District Court, D. Nevada
  • Filed
    Dec 21, 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    440 Civil Rights: Other
  • Cause
    42:1983 Civil Rights Act
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    Mar 30, 2026

Parties (2)

Parties
Cisco Aguilar, Russell Greer

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 33)

# Date Description Filing
28 Mar 29, 2026 Third AMENDED COMPLAINT against Cisco Aguilar by Russell Greer. No changes to parties. (Filed per ECF No. 27 - MAM) (Entered: 03/31/2026)
27 Mar 29, 2026 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 3/30/2026. Before this Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. ECF No. 26. This Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to detach the third amended complaint at ECF No. 26-2 and file it separately on the docket. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KNH) (Entered: 03/30/2026)
— Mar 29, 2026 Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
26 Mar 11, 2026 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Russell Greer. Responses are due by 3/26/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint)(MAM) (pleading) (Entered: 03/12/2026)
25 Mar 2, 2026 MOTION for Relief from Order Denying Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Russell Greer. Responses are due by 3/17/2026. (MAM) (misc) (injunctive) (Entered: 03/04/2026)
View all 33 filings
pp.png
It appears Mr. Greer has changed his name.
 
DavidS877 said:
Judging by the titles, I assume Greee went full retard.
View attachment 8652413

Attached as PDF.

ECF 24 as Images
View attachment 8652429View attachment 8652430View attachment 8652431

ECF 25 as Images
View attachment 8652432View attachment 8652433View attachment 8652434View attachment 8652435View attachment 8652437View attachment 8652438View attachment 8652439View attachment 8652440View attachment 8652441View attachment 8652442
Click to expand...

"I want my default because I did actually do correct service (which still hasn't been proven), rather than screwing it up like I thought."

"You bitches don't know what you are talking about, let me spell it out for you so maybe you can get it right this time."
 
 
 
GreeeGPT is getting quite annoyed with these judges.

(Once again these documents are liberally littered with the evidence of having been constructed by A.I. almost totally)
 
FamicomGorby said:
Classic Greer maneuver of submitting a motion to undo the thing that just happened.

Do notice he stopped including his gay footnote about how is in fact very skilled at the law and not at all a complete pro se retard.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth - @Sexy Senior Citizen 's post notwithstanding - we still got a motion that opens with "Plaintiff Plaintiff", so it all evens out in the end. Nevertheless, this should be expected because it's RG's formulaic response to any sort of decision that doesn't go his way.

BIG BILL HELL'S said:
What's 'bf'? Best friends? Butt fucker? Broken face?
Click to expand...
Better functionality 🤷‍♂️ because a court functions best when it 100% agrees with and rubber stamps anything submitted by RG?
 
BIG BILL HELL'S said:
What's 'bf'? Best friends? Butt fucker? Broken face?
Click to expand...

Bowel function. The judge needed to prevent herself from taking a massive dump on Russell's dreams of owning and running a Winnemucca whorehouse, but she just couldn't do it. The law forced her to flush his ambitions away.
 
1772649286338.png
tard2.png

Jesus Christ Russ. Telling the court "Yeah I didn't make an argument based on this case, but this case WOULD'VE supported my argument!" is not a legal error. It's you not making a fucking argument. That's disregarding the fact that you didn't even really engage with the idea of official proponent vs. circulators., which also distinguishes Pierce...
 
Botchy Galoop said:
(Once again these documents are liberally littered with the evidence of having been constructed by A.I. almost totally)
Click to expand...
This idiot's AI friend changed the styling of "Pierce court" three times within 2 sentences.

1772654047260.png

(The argument itself sounds like gibberish too, but that goes without saying.)
 
It's good I'm not a judge. My response to the second request for default would be: "Denied. Plaintiff has not properly served Defendant pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure which controls service within the state of Nevada."
No section or other citations, let him ask his AI what the court meant.
 
So apparently his plan after the Judge told him he improperly served the State and provided a detailed explanation of why his demand for a preliminary injunction was idiotic, is to demand that the Judge dismiss his entire case and sanction him for wasting the courts time with AI slop? Because that's the only way this approach makes any sense.

I assume this was filed from his car?
 
What a boon to vexatious litigants, AI is.

AI will encourage nutjobs to bring more court actions.

I can't help but feel if someone is using AI to do their whole motion, that if they end up hallucinating a legal reference, that they should face sanctions for reckless filings.
 
DavidS877 said:
It's good I'm not a judge. My response to the second request for default would be: "Denied. Plaintiff has not properly served Defendant pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure which controls service within the state of Nevada."
No section or other citations, let him ask his AI what the court meant.
Click to expand...

You have more patience than me. I'd just write "DENIED" and nothing else.

Although I must say, and this might be an unpopular opinion, I kinda wish they'd just give him this one. "Sure buddy, go ahead, you can put your whore measure on the ballot". Then we'd get to see another case of him not knowing wtf to do now that he's caught the car. And we all know that even if he somehow GPT'd his way into getting this shit on the ballot, it 100% would not pass.

The massive trauma lumps it would create to get his hopes up so high and then ultimately be crushed would be so worth it. I can already imagine his gloating on social media leading up to voting day, bragging about how he is single handedly legalizing whoredom, and then the resulting crashout immediately afterwards.
 
FatMan said:
You have more patience than me. I'd just write "DENIED" and nothing else.

Although I must say, and this might be an unpopular opinion, I kinda wish they'd just give him this one. "Sure buddy, go ahead, you can put your whore measure on the ballot". Then we'd get to see another case of him not knowing wtf to do now that he's caught the car. And we all know that even if he somehow GPT'd his way into getting this shit on the ballot, it 100% would not pass.

The massive trauma lumps it would create to get his hopes up so high and then ultimately be crushed would be so worth it. I can already imagine his gloating on social media leading up to voting day, bragging about how he is single handedly legalizing whoredom, and then the resulting crashout immediately afterwards.
Click to expand...
Nah I hope he gets it on the ballot through actually acquiring 5 signatures from the local creeps. That way we can see his initiative being voted against in outstanding numbers without creating shitty legal precedent.
 
RodgerDodger said:
So apparently his plan after the Judge told him he improperly served the State and provided a detailed explanation of why his demand for a preliminary injunction was idiotic, is to demand that the Judge dismiss his entire case and sanction him for wasting the courts time with AI slop? Because that's the only way this approach makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think he got service correct. However I also don't think the judge got the certification issue correct. The order from chambers is either badly written or badly ruled; possibly both.

I think what she was trying to say or rule is that certification can't happen until the constitutional issue is noticed on fully served state parties, but she implied the bad service instead of saying it outright. Then she denied certification... but it's unclear why, because the court is supposed to certify once proper notice/service is done. She didn't mention service issues, just a (possibly incorrect) bit about 5.1(a)(1)(b) not applying; which it doesn't, but that has nothing to do with the court's own obligation to certify.

Russ, being a retard who needs everything spelled out for him, needed to be explicitly told his service is bad, and wasn't. So he assumes he got that part right and renewed his demands for a default judgement. But even if he got service right, and even if the court failed in to certify when it should, Rule 5.1 still gives Aguilar 60 days to respond, not 21. So Greer's request for default is still premature.
 
Is is possible that through his own incompetence, Rusty has fallen ass-backward into an actual legitimate legal question?

Probably not.
 
Harvey Danger said:
This idiot's AI friend changed the styling of "Pierce court" three times within 2 sentences.

View attachment 8653072

(The argument itself sounds like gibberish too, but that goes without saying.)
Click to expand...
The claim appears to be fabricated too - Pierce dealt specifically with signature collectors, not petition sponsors, and even spelled out that regulating residency of initiative proponents would preserve self government without the unacceptable burden on speech a law requiring signature collectors to be residents would impose:
Montana offers no evidence or explanation for why this interest would not be vindicated through a system requiring that official proponents, petition signers, and voters on initiatives be residents. These restrictions on who may share in the legislative power at play in the initiative process would more directly protect the interest in self-government with only a minimal burden on political speech
Click to expand...
ETA: Link to Pierce

Russ also claims that the Court required a level of evidence contradicted by precedent:View attachment 8655201
But Meyer was yet again a case about petition circulators, making it trivially distinguishable.

Russ needs to sue ChatGPT and Grok, it's the only way to get justice for sabotaging his case!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom