🐮 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
RodDangerous said:
Russ gets owned by the U.S. District Court and vents his frustrations in a Google Review.

View attachment 1314430

If my calculations are correct, he would have posted this at approximately 5 a.m. MDT.
Click to expand...

What a fucking idiot. First he blames Tay Tay, then the Judge, then Chad Skordas, and now he's blaming a fucking file clerk for losing an unwinnable case.
 
RodDangerous said:
Russ gets owned by the U.S. District Court and vents his frustrations in a Google review.

View attachment 1314430

He would have posted this at approximately 5 a.m. MDT.
Click to expand...


Here's what Russhole is complaining about: the nature of his new anti-Tay-Tay lawsuit as listed on PACER. He's too stupid to understand the categorization they chose and why.

1590239013843.png


Here's the PACERMonitor link to the case for any law Kiwis who can bless us with copies of those documents:
 
Viridian said:
Here's what Russhole is complaining about: the nature of his new anti-Tay-Tay lawsuit as listed on PACER. He's too stupid to understand the categorization they chose and why.

View attachment 1314481

Here's the PACERMonitor link to the case for any law Kiwis who can bless us with copies of those documents:
Click to expand...
Lol "cause: diversity-personal injury"

I see one pic says Taylor swift followers. Is he trying to sue her for a million dollars cuz a million followers again?
 
Lain of the Wired said:
I stop reading the thread for a bit because the "going to court for harassment" plot line is dragging on and i come back to "screenplay featuring romance during the holocaust".

What fucking timeline is this?
Click to expand...
I stopped trying to make sense of it when Russ said he was gonna sue Tay-Tay again.
Viridian said:
Here's what Russhole is complaining about: the nature of his new anti-Tay-Tay lawsuit as listed on PACER. He's too stupid to understand the categorization they chose and why.

View attachment 1314481

Here's the PACERMonitor link to the case for any law Kiwis who can bless us with copies of those documents:
Click to expand...
So, failure to serve when? This is gonna be good!
 
Last edited:
Cilleystring said:
Just another sleepless night seething over Taylor Swift
Click to expand...


You can almost imagine the horrific image of him beating off furiously into a crusty cum-sock; the sounds of his labored, ragged breaths filling the room, punctuated by the occasional mournful sob.

Once spent, the butternut squash crawls up onto his greasy floortress and stares blankly at the cieling, slowly losing consciousness. His corpse-like visage, ever lifeless, is now shiny with tears mingling with the sheen of his oily face.

Is he asleep?
Is he truly dead?

LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
 
My god, he's really taking another run at her. He really, genuinely is incapable of learning.
 
What a goldmine of new info and lunacy in this latest filing! Can't wait for all the great commentary on it! There are quite a few stellar things that are new and some hilarity in there.
 
> He takes medicine twice a day (lamotrigine) and at night (clonidine) to cope with his pain. He has to take melatonin also in order for him to sleep.​

Lamotrigine is approved in the US for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder and bipolar II disorder. While the anticonvulsants carbamazepine and valproate are predominantly antimanics, lamotrigine is most effective for preventing the recurrent depressive episodes of bipolar disorder.

A 2013 review about lamotrigine concluded that it is recommended in bipolar maintenance when depression is prominent and that more research is needed in regard to its role in the treatment of acute bipolar depression and unipolar depression. Furthermore, no information to recommend its use in other psychiatric disorders was found.

Off-label psychiatric usage includes the treatment of treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder, depersonalization disorder, hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and borderline personality disorder.

It has not been shown to be useful in post-traumatic stress disorder.
 
A layperson can tell from how unprofessional his language is that this court case is garbage, but I'm still looking forward to a legal Kiwi tearing it to shreds for us.
 
badboy2000 said:
Here you go, fellow kiwis!
Click to expand...
Someone help, my sides have detached from my body and rocketed into space!
Let's peek at parts of this trainwreck, hold my hand we're going in.

> "In a world where safeguards and disclaimers are put into place at every turn for consumers and those wishing to do business with others, there are surprisingly no safeguards or disclaimers utilized by world famous celebrities, whose influences can be felt internationally, to minimize or avoid potential damages."

Incredible, completely wrong right out of the fucking gate. Celebrities are required to disclose if they're sponsored by companies or not and can be sued for lying about the efficacy of products they endorse. There are safeguards for MILES, the problem is that you're some kind of horrid homunculus who thinks celebrities have to tell you up front they won't suck you your penis.

> "Defendant Taylor Swift happens to have such an influence, which has resulted in a nearly four year long harm to Plaintiff Greer, which has resulted in giving Greer post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and has given rise to this Complaint."

You don't have PTSD, you're just pissed off, you tight headed cunt! The wording on this is awful, by the way, and really shows that patented Greer intellect.

> "Since the inception of the American judicial system, courts and legal scholars have held and argued that those who create misrepresentations, can be held liable for harm suffered by third parties, when those third parties rely on information that risks their safety, physically and monetarily."

Firstly, no, it has not been law since the founding of the country that you can sue someone for lying about a product. Secondly, even if it was, no product was sold to you that harmed you. You didn't suffer physical or monetary harm from Taylor Swift not hearing your song and sucking your dick. You suffered a blow to your over-inflated, hypersexual tard ego. You realized you're NOT, in fact, a 9/10 stud who can have any girl he wants through cheap flowers and trinkets. That kind of thing is a knife to the eyes for people (and I'm being very generous with the definition of a person here) like you.

> "Celebrities and public figures can already be held liable by the Federal Trade Commission (hereby collectively referred to as the "FTC"), per 16 CFR §255, for negligent endorsements and for failures to warn, in regards to the endorsement of products, though, only the FTC can bring action against celebrity endorsers in regards to products."

You were not sold a fraudulent or defective product by Taylor Swift, so none of that matters.

> "However, there are no restrictions precluding a private party to cite and use said federal statute as persuasive authority for actions not based on the statute, per se. Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Federal Trade Commission. (https://www.ftc. gov/sites/defaultlfiles/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guidesgoverning-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf)."

Now, I am not a Studly Paralegal Eagle who is basically a lawyer. However! I'm pretty sure I have a basic grasp of the law. My understanding is that you can only use relevant laws, cases, and statutes in a lawsuit, right? Tell me, Russ, in WHAT FUCKING WORLD is "lying about a product you are selling" relevant in any way to a case where the 'misrepresentation' being sued for is "I thought a song would get her to look at me and fuck me, but it didn't".

Are you trying to argue that Taylor Swift is, herself, a product, and that the product was represented as easy to obtain for your own personal ownership? Something which will not hold up in court, because Taylor Swift is an entire person, a real living human being?

> "This is a civil action seeking monetary damages for the negligent actions of Defendant Taylor Alison Swift (hereby collectively referred to as "Swift" and/or "Defendant") for her failure and breach of duty to use disclaimers in connection to her publicity stunts and intellectual property, of which have resulted in monetary damages, emotional damages, economical damages and physical damages to Plaintiff Russell G. Greer (hereby collectively referred to as "Greer" and/or "Plaintiff"), as he relied on Swift's publicity stunts and her intellectual property."

There is no world in which you convince a judge and jury that Taylor Swift physically hurt you by not accepting your tard songs and meeting you. Let's be clear here, that's ALL she did. She just ignored you. By definition, she did NOT harm you. You also can't claim physical damages when you've already admitted that you made up your stories of being attacked because of your first lawsuit against her, so making that claim in court could actually land you in serious trouble, Droolio.

> "PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Russell G. Greer resides in the State of Utah. He is 29 years old and has his paralegal degree. He was born with a facial disability termed, "Moebious Syndrome, " which means that he can't close his mouth and talk clearly, thus making daily life activities such as communicating, eating, drinking and being in public difficult.
9. Defendant Taylor Swift is an internationally famous, award winning artist, who is a year and a half older than Russell Greer. Swift is celebrated by the media for being supposedly compassionate and open with fans."

So, he's under the impression that the parties section calls for a short biography on his plights.

> "GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff Greer has always wanted to get into the entertainment industry. With a disability that limits Greer's expressions, though, it is difficult to do so, given that the business is already competitive enough."

Completely irrelevant to the lawsuit.

> "Throughout the years, Greer saw Defendant Taylor Swift interact with fans who reached out to her. These interactions consisted of showcasing invites to red carpet events; simple gifts, such as gift cards and quilts, on Twitter; accepting prom and military ball invites; inviting girls, who made paper cranes for Swift's ill mother, to a concert of hers."

Oh my god, still mad about the fucking paper cranes.

> "While the interactions varied, they established a reoccurring theme: Taylor Swift is open to accepting gifts and life stories from fans. She endorses such conduct. But it hasn't all been subtle: she has openly been generous and is constantly on the look out to help others. A Timeline of Taylor Swift's Generosity. Billboard. (2018)(hLts://ww4N,.google.com/amp/s/ww,billboard.coin/amp/articleslnews/8481430/timeline-ta orswift-generosity)."

Yes, and?

> "Besides the fan interactions, Swift gave several interviews to promote her music, where she expressed that certain things inspired her."

Yes, and? You've yet to say anything relevant.

> "In an interview to promote a movie she wrote music for, Swift states that she did the project because the story of a man who never gave up on his dreams, "inspired" her. One Chance — Exclusive First Look with Taylor Swift. YouTube. (2013)(https://-voutu.be/l,er9llP2Lu8lTo). Exhibit A (shows Swift's misstatements that were broadcasted and Greer's reliance on them)."

In what way is this a misstatement? She was inspired by a guy, who is NOT YOU, and thus has no bearing on your lawsuit.

> "For further influence, on a charity website that lists the charities that celebrities support, Taylor Swift is listed as supporting several charities for those with disabilities: ALS Association, Cancer Research Institute, Make-A-Wish Foundation. This all inspired Greer that Swift would be open to his intentions as a disabled man. Taylor Swift Charity Work, Events and Causes. Looktothestars.org. (2020). (littps://Nvw looktothestars.org/celebril5i/tUlor-swit'). EXHIBIT B. As a side note, even charities, including the ones that Swift supports, have disclaimers. Better Safe than Sorry: Nonprofits' use of Waivers, Releases and Disclaimers. CharityLawyer. (2013). (https://charillawyerblo g. com12013/02/26/better-safe-than-soii:y-nonprofits-use-of-waiversreleases-and-disclaimers/)."

"This inspired Greer that Swift would be open to his intentions as a disabled man" I am...wow. She supports charities for dying children and cancer patients and you thought that this meant she would be open to your "intentions" IE willing to have sex with you because she donates time and money to dying children.



Russ, I don't know why it's so hard for you to grasp that as a human being, Taylor enjoys the right to choose at her own discretion who she associates with. You didn't make the cut, you will NEVER make the cut, and the law cannot be used to force her to interact with you. This isn't the fucking playground and the judge is not your kindergarten teacher.

Lord help me this isn't even the really hilarious stuff, this is just the opener. This thing is miles and miles of plights and I don't think I can get through it all like this, my god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom