- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
David Stebbins comes before the Federal Court to Complain of Joshua Moon and his Company, Lolcow LLC. Why? It is not entirely clear. Because Stebbins filed a very long, very convoluted complaint that complains a lot about many things, such as the fact the Kiwi Farms murders people for fun, and are all around ne’er do wells. But what precisely his cause of action under the law is, is unclear. Taking his complaint in the broadest possible reading, Stebbins appears to be complaining of copyright infringement that occurred on the Farms. Since Stebbins fails to cite any statute or common law in his complaint, this can only be broad based opinion on my part.
THE PLAINTIFF
David Stebbins, who goes online by the name Acerthorn is a Youtube personality. In his In Forma Pauperis petition, he admits to making $47 a month from his Youtube channel.
Most people were introduced to him by Mister Metokur as “The Were Turkey”, due to a mistakenly uploaded video that has him gobbling hot dogs in a horrific manner while shirtless.
Beyond this fact, Stebbins is a Vexatious litigant. And this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the State of Arkansas, following a lawsuit in which he sued his own father after stabbing his father in the face. The Western District of Arkansas, after variously suing random people. And finally, the Northern District of California after suing Google and another Youtuber named Sid Alpha. The latter court itself, in declaring him vexatious opined that it was “deeply disturbed” by the plaintiffs abuse of process. They furthermore barred Stebbins from raising any copyright action against ANY defendant.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, defendant Joshua Moon received a DMCA take down notice from Stebbins regarding material being posted in his thread on the Kiwi Farms.. After reviewing the complaint, Null approved the request and deleted the alleged infringing material. In his complaint, Stebbins even admits that he can no longer find the originating post.
Stebbins however, seemed to take umbrage to Moon calling him a “fat condescending prick” while doing so.
The video would then be reposted, this time with some commentary. Stebbins would send a second DMCA, and Moon would refuse to delete the new, edited video.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Stebbins accuses Null and the Kiwi Farms of “Prima Facie Copyright Infringement”. This is not a cause of action. It is a legal phrase of art. No doubt Stebbins thought he came off seeming very smart writing it though, it being partly Latin. He then cites the authority to do so as 17 U.S.C. § 106(1). This is not a statute for a cause of action. It is merely a description of rights a copyright holder gets to enjoy and holds no possible enforcement on other parties. It seeks only to inform such enforcement which is found elsewhere in the code.
He then goes on to accuse Moon and the Forum of Safe Harbor AND Contributory Copyright Infringement. Which is... also not a cause of action. A Safe Harbor is a way to describe compliance with the law, and is again, another legal phrase of art. Contributory Copyright Infringement IS, however, a cause of action. The problem here though is that it’s an either/or thing. Is the Forum Directly Infringing, or is it Contributing to the Infringement? Because these are two different things, and it must be one or the other. Not both. He could be referring to the 9th circuits finding in Napster case, but he makes no argument citing to this authority. It should also be noted Contributory Copyright infringement is not a Statutory cause of action. Its something the courts wrote into common law as a way to describe the actual cause of action in the context of more convoluted scenarios. Such as Napster not directly hosting infringing materials but providing all the necessary tools to infringe.
Instead to support his claim of Contributory Infringement, Stebbins cites to a recent precedential ruling in the 10th Circuit. Greer v. Moon. 83 F. 4th 1283 (2023). Of course, he misapplies the precedent immediately by saying the court found Moon and Kiwifarms liable for Contributory copyright infringement. In that case, the court merely determined that Plaintiff Greer had pleaded sufficiently to argue he has a case. Not whether his case was meritorious.
Stebbins does correctly apply the 10th circuits ruling in that by reposting his DMCA and advising users in the thread on how to comply with Federal Law, he was contributing to copyright infringement. I reserve my own opinions on this, in deference to the 10th circuits justices who know more than me.
NONSENSE
Stebbins then attempts to predict what defenses might be raised and argues they don’t apply. Complete waste of ink. He even trips over his shoes by pointing out this is not the 12b(6) stage, and then cites a case relevant to the defendant and not the plaintiff. Excellent stuff. He then goes for several long winded paragraphs of absolute word salad, and then at the end asks the court to Sua Sponte bar the defense from using Fair Use as a defense.
Which is, well, insane. But he keeps on going, and its not worth belaboring the point. Though I find him bringing up “his past” in relation to defending his copyrights from Trolls very funny, considering his past efforts doing this led a Federal Court to order him to not bring a copyright case before them ever again.
He then goes on to ask for $900,000, arguing his songs, which in his own pauper filing are stated to be essentially worthless are protected by Copyright law and he is entitled to the statutory minimum of $150,000 for the six alleged infringements.
HARDIN ENTERS THE CHAT
Not wasting time, Null’s attorney enters with an immediate request that Stebbins be barred from access to the courts electronic filing system, bringing up the fact that the 9th circuit on April 1st of this year barred Stebbins from its use due to abuse. Namely, filing HUNDREDS of frivolous motions.
For this reason, Hardin moved to deny Stebbins the access to the courts electronic filing system.
He also requested the extraordinary remedy of screening the In Forma Pauperis petition, citing the plaintiffs massive body of work in the field of vexatious litigation, and whether or not the case should be dismissed immediately.
Hardin did however, offer the court a footnote alternative of holding an "in person" hearing to address the issue. I'm sure Stebbins is ready to travel from Arkansas to West Virginia to argue his plights.
Stebbins did not take this lying down of course. After all, he’s on Social Welfare, living in a Section 8 apartment block, and makes enough money from his Youtube videos to buy a can of Mickeys every week. He can’t afford filing fees, let alone an attorney. Something he has used to great effect against many people. Having to do work is stressful guys
Such as his ongoing lawsuit against Garcia Baz In his filing, he admits to copy and pasting his complaint against Baz filed in the 9th circuit to create this separate lawsuit in the 4th circuit.
How Stebbins intends to litigate two separate lawsuits at the same time in two federal districts thousands of miles from his apartment remains unclear. What is clear however is he’s very used to making other people pay for it. Something Hardin brought up in an almost immediate response to these filings.
The case has been docketed and assigned to Judge Thomas E. Johnston, who is hilariously, not just a Judge, but THE District Court Judge.
THE PLAINTIFF
David Stebbins, who goes online by the name Acerthorn is a Youtube personality. In his In Forma Pauperis petition, he admits to making $47 a month from his Youtube channel.
Most people were introduced to him by Mister Metokur as “The Were Turkey”, due to a mistakenly uploaded video that has him gobbling hot dogs in a horrific manner while shirtless.
Beyond this fact, Stebbins is a Vexatious litigant. And this is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the State of Arkansas, following a lawsuit in which he sued his own father after stabbing his father in the face. The Western District of Arkansas, after variously suing random people. And finally, the Northern District of California after suing Google and another Youtuber named Sid Alpha. The latter court itself, in declaring him vexatious opined that it was “deeply disturbed” by the plaintiffs abuse of process. They furthermore barred Stebbins from raising any copyright action against ANY defendant.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, defendant Joshua Moon received a DMCA take down notice from Stebbins regarding material being posted in his thread on the Kiwi Farms.. After reviewing the complaint, Null approved the request and deleted the alleged infringing material. In his complaint, Stebbins even admits that he can no longer find the originating post.
Stebbins however, seemed to take umbrage to Moon calling him a “fat condescending prick” while doing so.
The video would then be reposted, this time with some commentary. Stebbins would send a second DMCA, and Moon would refuse to delete the new, edited video.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Stebbins accuses Null and the Kiwi Farms of “Prima Facie Copyright Infringement”. This is not a cause of action. It is a legal phrase of art. No doubt Stebbins thought he came off seeming very smart writing it though, it being partly Latin. He then cites the authority to do so as 17 U.S.C. § 106(1). This is not a statute for a cause of action. It is merely a description of rights a copyright holder gets to enjoy and holds no possible enforcement on other parties. It seeks only to inform such enforcement which is found elsewhere in the code.
He then goes on to accuse Moon and the Forum of Safe Harbor AND Contributory Copyright Infringement. Which is... also not a cause of action. A Safe Harbor is a way to describe compliance with the law, and is again, another legal phrase of art. Contributory Copyright Infringement IS, however, a cause of action. The problem here though is that it’s an either/or thing. Is the Forum Directly Infringing, or is it Contributing to the Infringement? Because these are two different things, and it must be one or the other. Not both. He could be referring to the 9th circuits finding in Napster case, but he makes no argument citing to this authority. It should also be noted Contributory Copyright infringement is not a Statutory cause of action. Its something the courts wrote into common law as a way to describe the actual cause of action in the context of more convoluted scenarios. Such as Napster not directly hosting infringing materials but providing all the necessary tools to infringe.
Instead to support his claim of Contributory Infringement, Stebbins cites to a recent precedential ruling in the 10th Circuit. Greer v. Moon. 83 F. 4th 1283 (2023). Of course, he misapplies the precedent immediately by saying the court found Moon and Kiwifarms liable for Contributory copyright infringement. In that case, the court merely determined that Plaintiff Greer had pleaded sufficiently to argue he has a case. Not whether his case was meritorious.
Stebbins does correctly apply the 10th circuits ruling in that by reposting his DMCA and advising users in the thread on how to comply with Federal Law, he was contributing to copyright infringement. I reserve my own opinions on this, in deference to the 10th circuits justices who know more than me.
NONSENSE
Stebbins then attempts to predict what defenses might be raised and argues they don’t apply. Complete waste of ink. He even trips over his shoes by pointing out this is not the 12b(6) stage, and then cites a case relevant to the defendant and not the plaintiff. Excellent stuff. He then goes for several long winded paragraphs of absolute word salad, and then at the end asks the court to Sua Sponte bar the defense from using Fair Use as a defense.
Which is, well, insane. But he keeps on going, and its not worth belaboring the point. Though I find him bringing up “his past” in relation to defending his copyrights from Trolls very funny, considering his past efforts doing this led a Federal Court to order him to not bring a copyright case before them ever again.
He then goes on to ask for $900,000, arguing his songs, which in his own pauper filing are stated to be essentially worthless are protected by Copyright law and he is entitled to the statutory minimum of $150,000 for the six alleged infringements.
HARDIN ENTERS THE CHAT
Not wasting time, Null’s attorney enters with an immediate request that Stebbins be barred from access to the courts electronic filing system, bringing up the fact that the 9th circuit on April 1st of this year barred Stebbins from its use due to abuse. Namely, filing HUNDREDS of frivolous motions.
For this reason, Hardin moved to deny Stebbins the access to the courts electronic filing system.
He also requested the extraordinary remedy of screening the In Forma Pauperis petition, citing the plaintiffs massive body of work in the field of vexatious litigation, and whether or not the case should be dismissed immediately.
Hardin did however, offer the court a footnote alternative of holding an "in person" hearing to address the issue. I'm sure Stebbins is ready to travel from Arkansas to West Virginia to argue his plights.
Stebbins did not take this lying down of course. After all, he’s on Social Welfare, living in a Section 8 apartment block, and makes enough money from his Youtube videos to buy a can of Mickeys every week. He can’t afford filing fees, let alone an attorney. Something he has used to great effect against many people. Having to do work is stressful guys
Such as his ongoing lawsuit against Garcia Baz In his filing, he admits to copy and pasting his complaint against Baz filed in the 9th circuit to create this separate lawsuit in the 4th circuit.
How Stebbins intends to litigate two separate lawsuits at the same time in two federal districts thousands of miles from his apartment remains unclear. What is clear however is he’s very used to making other people pay for it. Something Hardin brought up in an almost immediate response to these filings.
The case has been docketed and assigned to Judge Thomas E. Johnston, who is hilariously, not just a Judge, but THE District Court Judge.
Last edited:
