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

[Mind Goblins]

View attachment 8652445
It appears Mr. Greer has changed his name.

I got so hyped when I saw the return of Plaintiff Plaintiff. My pet theory on how that keeps happening is that he tells the AI "I'm Plaintiff Russell Greer..." and because he's using whatever free models he can get his hands on they occasionally get confused and think Plaintiff is his name. That doesn't quite explain why it doesn't use his full name or surname, but it at least explains the repetition.

 

[Harvey Danger]

The claim appears to be fabricated too - Pierce dealt specifically with signature collectors, not petition sponsors,

But it meets the one criteria that Greer GreeePT was looking for: it contained the words "strict scrutiny" and "residency". The connection between those words is just trivial nitpicking against a good faith pro se litigant.

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:

But Meyer was yet again a case about petition circulators, making it trivially distinguishable.

It is crystal clear that Greer did no analysis of the ruling at all, because it clearly lays out why these positions are distinguishable, why sponsors are important, and why it matters. It also laid out the reasons residency requirements are not an undue burden. GreeePT's response just completely ignored all of the already-explained reasons, and didn't try to refute them at all.

The judge could just copy/paste her ruling to deny this request, and 95% of it would still be a relevant analysis.

 

[ConSluttant]

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.

He would have to spend HOURS driving back and forth to set up tables outside of Walmart or some shit spending even MORE HOURS collecting signatures to get the thing on the ballot at all. He really should be allowed to catch this car so that he can know what REAL canvassing work is all about. It can be a daily grind to get all the signatures you need in. I would almost take leave from my own job and travel to get us actual footage of Greeee in the wild attempting to get signatures because it's just that worth it to see.

 

[Watching Rekieta]

He would have to spend HOURS driving back and forth to set up tables outside of Walmart or some shit spending even MORE HOURS collecting signatures to get the thing on the ballot at all. He really should be allowed to catch this car so that he can know what REAL canvassing work is all about. It can be a daily grind to get all the signatures you need in. I would almost take leave from my own job and travel to get us actual footage of Greeee in the wild attempting to get signatures because it's just that worth it to see.

That's not how Russell operates. If he won this round, he would file a lawsuit to have his proposal added to the ballot. Same arguments. And then when it failed, he'd file a lawsuit to order the SoS declare it passed. He doesn't work. He sues.

 

[UncleTusky]

He would have to spend HOURS driving back and forth to set up tables outside of Walmart or some shit spending even MORE HOURS collecting signatures to get the thing on the ballot at all. He really should be allowed to catch this car so that he can know what REAL canvassing work is all about. It can be a daily grind to get all the signatures you need in. I would almost take leave from my own job and travel to get us actual footage of Greeee in the wild attempting to get signatures because it's just that worth it to see.

Then would come the inevitable challenges/nitpicking from people opposed to the referendum if it did get enough - this is so routine that most initiatives collect far over the legal minimum # of signatures since they know at least some will be challenged and tossed. Russ is not ready, legally or emotionally, for that.

 

[Not At All A Lizard]

Sorry, catching up, but reading this part on the Order denying his injunction:

If Russell wasn't retarded and malicious, there'd be a chance he'd see that "and" and it would help with a lot of his future and past confusion. He has sent many many emergency motions or injunction demands based only on him being potentially harmed by not getting his relief NOW. He really thinks that the (chance of) "irreparable injury" part alone is enough to make the world stop for him. He really is completely self-centered.

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

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.

Rule 5.1, and 28 U.S. § 2403 which it references, both contain the condition that the constitutionality of a state statute must be questioned and the state (or any agency, officer or employee thereof) is not a party.

Russel is challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada statute. An officer of the State of Nevada is a party. Therefore the second condition is not met for requiring a notice from the party or certification from the court. See, e.g., McCumsey v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1597, at *5 (11th Cir., Apr. 2, 2026) (explaining to prison enjoyer that § 2403 does not permit a state to intervene in a case it is already a party to and thereby give the court jurisdiction); Daniels v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172424, at *9-10 (D. Haw., Nov. 28, 2011) (explaining to pro-se retard trying to undo the thing that has been done that the Court's failure to certify under Rule 5.1(b) was not a defect when the U.S. is already a party).

The point of the rule and the statute is to allow the government to intervene and defend the constitutionality of the challenged statute, even if the suit is between private parties. There is no need for this procedure when the government is already a party.

 

[Harvey Danger]

Russel is challenging the constitutionality of a Nevada statute. An officer of the State of Nevada is a party. Therefore the second condition is not met for requiring a notice from the party or certification from the court. See, e.g., McCumsey v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1597 * (11th Cir. 2026) (explaining to prison enjoyer that § 2403 does not permit a state to intervene in a case it is already a party to and thereby give the court jurisdiction);

I don't think it's quite that clear. Yes, it means the notice isn't required, but 5.1(b) doesn't have that party exception for court certification. McCumsey seems to read 5.1 the same way I do, separating out the notice and the certification, without saying the certification is only required when the state isn't a party.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party who files a pleading that challenges “the constitutionality of a . . . state statute” must (1) file “a notice of constitutional question” that states the question and identifies “the paper that raises it” if “a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity,” and (2) serve the notice and paper on the state attorney general. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1)-(2). Rule 5.1 further provides that the district court must, under § 2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned. [emphasis added]

When it does focus on the state already being a party, it's arguing about whether 5.1 somehow grants jurisdiction by allowing the state to intervene. It doesn't.

I couldn't find the Daniels ruling you're talking about, I assume it's more explicit there. However I stumbled across this instead. which seems to be a later in the same case. It has way more hilarious pro se retardation that I'm going to enjoy later.



"Northwest Ordinance" - sov cit detected!

I admit I'm putting a lot of emphasis on the Committee Notes to 5.1's implementation, and likely missing something. But that's only because nothing I've seen cited so far comes out and plainly states "the court isn't required to certify the constitutional question when the state is already a party". The Notes seem to say 5.1 was created explicitly to change §2403 to create extra obligation.

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

Readings that are contrary to the explicit text of the statute usually don't generate precedent because they are rarely asserted, especially not in published decisions. But I looked up some more for you:

United States v. Roberts, Nos. 4:12-cr-40026, 4:16-cv-04012, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147366, at *8 (W.D. Ark., Oct. 25, 2016).

The United States is already a party to this action and has been served with this filing. As a result, the notice requirement set forth in Rule 5.1 has been satisfied. Accordingly, the Court hereby denies Roberts' motion to the extent that it requests that the Court certify to the Attorney General that the constitutionality of a federal statute has been called into question.

United States v. Stuler, Civ.No. 08-273, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250550, at *2-3 (W.D. Pa., Feb. 13, 2018‍).

Quite simply, the United States must be given the option to intervene if it is not a party to a case in which a constitutional challenge is made to a federal statute. ... Thus, this rule requiring certification does not apply in the case at bar because the United States is already a party to this case.

Underhill v. Metro Gov't Jefferson Cnty. Att'y Mike O'Connell, No. 3:24-cv-171-DJH, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 253286, at *1-3 (W.D. Ky., Dec., 2024).

After the case was dismissed, pro se Plaintiff Lisa Underhill filed a motion asserting a "Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge." ... In the motion, Underhill asserts that the Court must certify ....

In any event, neither Rule 5.1 nor § 2403 are applicable here. ... [‍S‍]ee also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 (requiring that "the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity") Underhill's case does not implicate § 2403(b) because she sued a state entity.

You might be interested in the Committee's description of the published draft.

The relationship between the rules and the statute they implement, § 2403, also is important. ...
Both the Rule 5.1 draft and Appellate Rule 44 depart from § 2403 in at least three ways. First, each imposes an obligation a party ....

Second, § 2403 applies only to a statute "affecting the public interest." ... Rule 5.1 (b) also requires certification, going beyond Appellate Rule 44. This expansion of the statutory certification requirement flows from the belief that the Attorney General should be the first to determine whether an act affects the public interest and to argue for intervention on that view. ...

Third, § 2403 does not require notice to the Attorney General if a United States officer or employee is a party. Both Appellate Rule 44 and draft Rule 5.1 require notice when an officer or employee is a party, but is not sued in an official capacity. With respect to an Act of Congress, the United States Attorney General often will have notice under Civil Rule 4(i) of an action against a United States officer or employee in an individual capacity, but not always.

Note that the rule is expressly meant to be broader than § 2403 in some ways. The expanded certification (even when it's not "affecting the public interest") is accomplished by 5.1(b) incorporating the requirements of 5.1(a). If you read it standing alone, then you would also suppose that certification is needed when a statute is "questioned" about something other than its constitutionality.

It is not expanded not by requiring certification when an officer in his official capacity is a party. This is because service against an officer of the United States in his official capacity already requires sending a copy to the Attorney General, under Rule 4(i)(1)(B). And the purpose of certification is to facilitate intervention; in your reading, the Attorney General must have an opportunity to intervene even if he himself is already a party.

 

[Harvey Danger]

But I looked up some more for you:

Thanks. Looks like I'm the retard here, in good company with other pro se retards.

The part that was really hanging me up was the 60 day window. The drafting notes you have were 2003, saying they added it explicitly. The notes I read, from 2006 and subsequent revisions, move to give the court more flexibility in allowing more time. But the start times of that window are given as either notice or certification. If the court doesn't certify whenever someone is sued in their official capacity, then when does the timer start?

The obvious answer is from day of service, assuming they did it properly. There's other rules and statutes to cover normal response times. But this 60 days and the court's ability to modify it exists solely in Rule 5.1, I believe. If it's supposed to start at service and override the standard response time, that could have easily been included in (c) along with mentions of notice and certification. If it's not supposed to override the standard response time--as Greer seems to think--and only applies in the non-party situation, then fair enough. But then it seems weird to give the AG 60 days in one situation and less in the other.

I would autistically like the court to always be required to certify, to make everything nice and explicit. But then we wouldn't get to watch Greer flail around.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

The obvious answer is from day of service, assuming they did it properly

Which is still an outstanding, fairly serious question in this situation.

 

[FatMan]

Which is still an outstanding, fairly serious question in this situation.

The fact that this guy can't figure out how to properly serve people is one of the most fascinating things about him imo. He loves suing people for fun, but can't figure out the (trivial) initial process to do so. It's like watching somebody that loves video games but repeatedly can't find the power button on the console.

 

[DavidS877]

We've got CONTENT.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72072590/greer-v-aguilar/

ECF 26 PDF as single document attached and images.
When I saw the amended complaint was 74 fucking pages I thought "Maybe I won't bother with the images." then I scrolled to the end, Rather than spoil it, you can read it yourself.
His first amended complaint was 12 pages.
The second was 14.
This one is SEVENTY FOUR.

Spoiler: 80 pages, sorry null

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Jesus H. Christ, how many times is he going to amend this turd. You can gussy up a turd all you want, but it's still a fucking turd.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

I picked a page at random. I was not disappointed.

 

[Pee Cola]

Jesus H. Christ, how many times is he going to amend this turd. You can gussy up a turd all you want, but it's still a fucking turd.

Not only has Greee polished this turd, he's rolled it in glitter and covered it in 2-pack clear coat. It's a shame the glitter is blotchy and the clear coat has runs all through it, though.

EDIT: Uh-oh... I see an innocent goof-up!

Motion for Leave to file Fourth Amended Complaint incoming? Or is Greee banking on the Ninth Circuit automatically adopting the Tenth Circuit's ruling on time travel in Greer v. Moon?

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

I like how Crusty sees no one wanting to work with him and his nonsense as a bug of the 5 elector rule, rather than it working as intended. I didn't see anything he claimed that was actionable in a court of law. I hope the judge summarily dismisses it with the phrase "Not a bug, it's a feature"

Considering other people obviously succeed despite the HUGE barrier of 5 local electors being needed for an initiative, Greee doesn't see that as his cause being hopeless, rather that just because he can't manage to do it, it is onerous and violates the constitution.

 

[FamicomGorby]

Enjoy prison stalker child



Patrick should sue Greer for aping his bit.

Also a third fucking amended complaint? Does filing these reset the default countdown each time?

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Enjoy prison stalker child

Elijah may be a fucker, but he sure isn't mine.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

I picked a page at random. I was not disappointed.

View attachment 8692929

18 emails in a single day?!? WOW. That is really burning the midnight fucking oil. 18 e-mails, dozens of calls. I love how he thinks this shit is at all persuasive. The court should dismiss it on the fact that he barely fucking tried. You show thousands of e-mails, calls to every single resident in every jurisdiction you want an initiative in, etc... then you might have something worth looking at. What a fucking loser.

If he could show proof he knocked on every single fucking door in West Wendover and he was spit at, threatened, had a gun brandished at him, etc... if I was a juror, I'd give his argument serious consideration, but he hasn't even done what most people would consider a solid 40 hours in a week worth of work, not even fucking close.