- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Depends on the state. In some, like Utah it's not a crime, but Utah bar can sue you by a civil action. In, Arkansas however it can be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the severity
Skitzocow David Anthony Stebbins / Acerthorn / stebbinsd / fayettevillesdavid - Litigious autist, obese livestreamer, elder abuser, violent schizo, ladyboy importer, hot dog enjoyer, wereturkey.
- Thread starter Mister Mint
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
I know the judge keeps threatening to hit Stabbins with vexatious litigant status, but when will he actually grow a pair and do it? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I get the feeling there will be at least another half dozen of these threats from the judge as Stabbins files more horseshit and the judge keeps on rubber-stamping said horseshit with his great big eff off "DENIED" stamp.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
If my memory serves me right, other interactions he made were:
- Attempted to talk about Acer's family. Got immideatly threatened with defamation lawsuit;
- On a separate occasion contacted again and got an unreleased court document related to senior Stabbins;
- Fill out the livestream debate form...
Acerthorn's "fair shake" example:
Attachments
I think the only possible answer to those terms is "Go get yourself fucked".
There's no way anyone with a brain would sign those terms.
Especially the point about Law of arbitrations. We know how those goes for aderpthorn. He forges them and the tell the court "Arbitration told me he owes me the entire GDP of Europe".
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Two different instances in two different cases. You pretty much must warn before doing it, and in most cases sanctions come before the status. It is a very harsh and relatively rare punishment.
Though Acer's spam of motions and abuse of urgent motions might very well do him in. The judges and the clerks can't dismiss his frivolous motions as there may very well be urgency. At least... Not until he's declared vexatious.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
About nothing of what you said here is correct.
The Judge can dismiss his motions. The judge specfically said he will dismiss any new motion he files.
Any perceived urgency is immaterial. The court is not compeled to review "urgent" motions, they choose to. He can title literally all of them "emergency super urgent" and that compels the court not at all. That is not to say they usually don't read "emergency" motions and decide on them reletively fast, they do, but they don't have to.
Re:Vexatious status, it seems to me you are using it as some sort of buzzword. Apologies if that is not true.
You're more than likely right. I'm a nobody and I got 0 training in US lawfare.
I'm just saying: I receive emails in my work. If someone marks their as important, I will go to theirs faster than others. If I deem it not important, I will put it on the backburner.
If the same person keeps doing that because they know it'll attract my attention, I'll tell them to stop it unless it's truly urgent. If they continue, into a "am specil" folder by automation rule and I'll read them when I have nothing else.
My job's not important. No lives rides on my ability to read emails in a timely matter. But a judge and their teams? I believe them being poked that way constantly will irritate them. Even if they have no obligation to shift focus on that new document that came in labelled "Extra Urgent Must Do Quick Lives Depends On It! RUSH IT [Urgent]", that document will hook their curiosity. And having that document being drivel will drive them up the wall. Being irritated by that, I feel would be a perfectly valid tipping point to label a pauper that fields hundreds of motions and files dozens of cases in quick succession a litigant that comes in the justice system in bad faith and would require some additional restrictions because he's abusing the leeway.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2020
Hate to see it. Every dollar spent by them is a victory for acerthorn since they'll never recover it from his broke ass. Still, it must be done.
I take solace that Acer has to live knowing that being utterly worthless in every conceivable way is his superpower.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
So remember how the judge told Acer to stop filling frivolous motions? Well, Acer had a genius idea! What if he filed more of them? And so he did.
On: Stebbins v. Polano
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE Filed by David Stebbins
EMERGENCY MOTION TO ORDER THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE Filed by David Stebbins (includes YT emails)
On: Stebbins v. Polano
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE Filed by David Stebbins
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2018
I honestly can't wait to see him get slapped down by the courts.
Is there a general philosophy or thought process around the number of warnings a person is given before being declared vexatious by the court?
lolwatagain
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
No. Courts are just generally hesitant to restrict a person's access to the courts unless it is absolutely necessary. There isn't any real philosophy on the number of warnings or frivolous filings a person gets. But most people don't want to be slapped with Rule 11 sanctions.
Even if the court declares him vexatious, they'll just require him to take extra steps before he can file IFP. They'll require him to obtain a lawyer before filing; require him to post a bond while filing; or limit the number of suits he can file, etc.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
You gotta understand, what you are asking for is very rare, and the courts are very hesitant to limit your rights as such. The "general philosophy" heavily relies on either state law or (in states where there isn't such status in the statutes (like I believe VA) ) on the way appellate courts decided to handle such pests. In places like Nevada or Utah the burden is extremely low. In Nevada one frivolous motion is technically enough (although I have never seen it be lower than 5 lawsuits although even there the plaintiff had been shitting up the courts in literally all the states, and only had started shitting up Nevada. See O'Neal v. Zurich Ins. Co., 2:18-cv-01677-RFB-BNW (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2021) , where in Utah losing five claims for relief, in 7 years is enough. California (where this lawsuit takes place) requires five lost litigations in seven years. That being said usually the courts try to not attach a vexatious litigant status unless all other alternatives failed.
However, if I were to try to define a "general philosophy" of a annoyed court, it'd be a few warnings, sanctions, and only then the declaration. That being said, such declarations are to be very rare as it does severely limit the Plaintiff's right to the petition the courts.
Or not allow to file IFP at all.
They can do a whole lot with declaration of vexatious litigant, and every state has its favorite method. The most common ones I see is your first and third examples. California (where this lawsuit takes place) favors a bit of a different method. They like to issue a "prefiling order that prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in California in [propria persona] without first obtaining permission from the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the filing is proposed" They even have a list of all vexatious litigants in Cali (updated monthy)
GosalynGaming
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
The Echo Wilder DMs with Acerthorn.
After this, Acerthorn hit her with a copyright strike.
After this, Acerthorn hit her with a copyright strike.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Ironic that acer says "you don't know how the law works" while simultaneously saying that doxing is illegal (it is not). Also funny that he wants to make on Fair Use when he knows nothing about it. Remember, this is the same person that thinks defamation liability standards have something to do with Fair Use somehow
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2021
Metokur put acerthorn in his april roundup thumbnail. We might finally get that stream bois. Prepare for a full blown meltdown from the fly eating dad stabber.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2020
"You don't know how the law works." - man that has filed around 50 suits and lost all of them, many with prejudice
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
I don't get why he thinks he knows how the law works when it's obvious he don't know how to read nor does he pay any attention to what the court tells him.