Skitzocow David Anthony Stebbins / Acerthorn / stebbinsd / fayettevillesdavid - Litigious autist, obese livestreamer, elder abuser, violent schizo, ladyboy importer, hot dog enjoyer, wereturkey.

[Glowie]

Stebbins v. Google LLC
View attachment 5341215

GOOGLE POINTS OUT THAT ACERTHORN LIED
View attachment 5341225

It cost Google nearly 2 grand to file the earlier notice of non compliance:
View attachment 5341237

Common Acerthorn L. I bet he refuses to pay any fines or accept court decisions

Only attempt to sue the court itself would top this.

I have a optimistic feeling that he might do just that.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

The Eye of Sauron is upon him. Couldn’t happen to a nicer vexatious litigant.

I’m sure he’ll file another motion to deny this and claim he has copyright on all files on his computer and Google owes him eleventy trillion dollars for Intentional Infliction of Legal Distress.

Does this mean Google will force the federal reserve to print more money for them or would Google charge a massive amount on it's user base if this happens?

 

[️ronic]

Was trying to look for Acer's "Accidental Livestream", and it appears to have been nuked from YouTube (and I can guess why). Does anyone have a backup by chance?

 

[Yabbit]

Was trying to look for Acer's "Accidental Livestream", and it appears to have been nuked from YouTube (and I can guess why). Does anyone have a backup by chance?

....It's in the OP

 

[️ronic]

....It's in the OP

I see some clips of it, but not the whole thing. If it's linked somewhere, I don't see it.

 

[The sleeper]

I see some clips of it, but not the whole thing. If it's linked somewhere, I don't see it.

creetosis yeeted all of acerthorn content including the full stream because the fat molding cracker turkey has been copyright striking videos

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

What he lacks in quantity he makes up for in quality.

To give this retard credit, he has set precident and is taught in law schools. So stupid have been his filings.

I'm amazed he hasn't tried suing for compensation for that yet.

 

[Terrorist]

David Anthony Stebbins loves shitting inside nigger assholes. Many people have said this, more and more people are saying it, and I haven't heard anything different.

 

[Instant_Pot_User]

David Anthony Stebbins loves shitting inside nigger assholes. Many people have said this, more and more people are saying it, and I haven't heard anything different.

 

[The Demon]

There is an inherent assumption that you are a law-abiding citizen, and there is an inherent power of the court to punish you if you are not. If the court had any suspicions that he had not complied (as they do now), they could always seize his hard drives and check, and bill him the cost.

can the courts also pin him for stuff on the hard drives that are illegal but unrelated to the case? or is that blanket warrant territory

 

[AnOminous]

can the courts also pin him for stuff on the hard drives that are illegal but unrelated to the case? or is that blanket warrant territory

Since the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to punish police misconduct by excluding the evidence obtained through misconduct, it's a very fact-dependent analysis. If something is essentially in plain sight, and was found by executing an otherwise constitutional search warrant without exceeding its bounds, then it is admissable.

If they HADN'T[*] went beyond the warrant or obtained it in the first place by misconduct, then it is admissable because it was obtained in the ordinary course of the search. There are lots of exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Another is inevitable discovery, where the material in question would have been discovered regardless of misconduct, i.e. no prejudice resulted from the misconduct.

tl;dr short answer is maybe.

[*] Correction of omitted word

 

[Glowie]

I bet this motherfucker tries to use cheat engine on his bank account also. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

He must have one crazy cheat table.
Find value, second value, edit.
Imagine him getting into crypto and doing same

 

[Meat Target]

I bet this motherfucker tries to use cheat engine on his bank account also. HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Oh my goodness, he would be a nightmare bank customer. What would he do?

• Attempt to kite checks?
• Try to use overdraft protection as an infinite money hack?
• Sue because Know-Your-Customer (which banks are required by law to obtain) is doxxing?
• Sue for getting turned down for a loan and getting a derogatory remark on his credit report (which I assume is already abysmal), which he would say is "defamation" and "discrimination"?
• Unilaterally change the interest rate on a CD to 1000% and say if the bank doesn't respond, they surrender to arbitration?
• Demand to be on the Board of Directors?

 

[Coily the Spring Sprite]

He's a perfect example of an issue a lot of cows have, he's smart enough to do something, in this case all this legal nonsense he's filed, but not smart enough not to do it.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

He must have one crazy cheat table.
Find value, second value, edit.
Imagine him getting into crypto and doing same

Oh my goodness, he would be a nightmare bank customer. What would he do?

• Attempt to kite checks?
• Try to use overdraft protection as an infinite money hack?
• Sue because Know-Your-Customer (which banks are required by law to obtain) is doxxing?
• Sue for getting turned down for a loan and getting a derogatory remark on his credit report (which I assume is already abysmal), which he would say is "defamation" and "discrimination"?
• Unilaterally change the interest rate on a CD to 1000% and say if the bank doesn't respond, they surrender to arbitration?
• Demand to be on the Board of Directors?

I haven't laughed this hard in a while, thanks gents.

 

[Glowie]

I haven't laughed this hard in a while, thanks gents.

Just wait for the retard to screenshot the edited page and present it as proof like a Indian call center and yell at the bank staff

"LOOK HERE YOU TROLLS, YOU'RE KEEPING MY MILLIONS FROM ME!"

It will happen one day glowbrother, just believe.

 

[Counterfeit Obol]

Oh my goodness, he would be a nightmare bank customer. What would he do?

• Attempt to kite checks?
• Try to use overdraft protection as an infinite money hack?
• Sue because Know-Your-Customer (which banks are required by law to obtain) is doxxing?
• Sue for getting turned down for a loan and getting a derogatory remark on his credit report (which I assume is already abysmal), which he would say is "defamation" and "discrimination"?
• Unilaterally change the interest rate on a CD to 1000% and say if the bank doesn't respond, they surrender to arbitration?
• Demand to be on the Board of Directors?

Nothing. Pretty sure most banks don't let animals in the premises unless they're service animals.

 

[Meat Target]

Nothing. Pretty sure most banks don't let animals in the premises unless they're service animals.

Then he'll sue them for discriminating against turkeys.

"No, eighty quadrillion dollars is isn't un-rea-son-a-ble, because (huhhh unnghhh, hnngggg) banks have FDIC coverage and can be bailed out (AWBAWBAWBAWBAWB)!"

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

Just wait for the retard to screenshot the edited page and present it as proof like a Indian call center and yell at the bank staff

"LOOK HERE YOU TROLLS, YOU'RE KEEPING MY MILLIONS FROM ME!"

It will happen one day glowbrother, just believe.

It's so stupid it just might work.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Since the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to punish police misconduct by excluding the evidence obtained through misconduct, it's a very fact-dependent analysis. If something is essentially in plain sight, and was found by executing an otherwise constitutional search warrant without exceeding its bounds, then it is admissable.

If they went beyond the warrant or obtained it in the first place by misconduct, then it is admissable because it was obtained in the ordinary course of the search. There are lots of exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Another is inevitable discovery, where the material in question would have been discovered regardless of misconduct, i.e. no prejudice resulted from the misconduct.

tl;dr short answer is maybe.

Can you imagine being the government employee that has to view every piece of video and audio content on Acerthorns Harddives?