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

[MongolianMongoose]

HOLY SHIT. Look at this comment on Acerthorns Wind Waker video mentioned a couple pages back.

This is almost exactly the same as what he said he wanted to do this his father in 2007.

he would cut his father's forehead and take his blood to write a letter of forgiveness.

He's literally fantasizing about committing the crime he was accused of. He's been getting off to the same sick torture fantasy for at least 12 years. This is psychotic.

Timeline
2007/12/03 Tells university his plans to attack father with a knife.
2011/11/24(Thanksgiving) Accused of attacking father with a knife
2013/03/08 Enters negotiated guilty plea to 3rd degree domestic battery
1 year of probation
2014/05/12 Order to seal
2019 Publicly fantasizes about slicing people's faces.

Legal kiwis. The order to seal was granted 2 months after his probation ended. The law says he has to wait 5 years before petitioning for sealing. Is he at risk of having the seal retracted, making him refile?


There's the old 2013 (16-90-904) and 2014 (16-90-1405) versions of the law in the attached pdf. Both have a 5 year wait.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Zander filed some motions

Acerthorn responds

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

Acerthorn responds
View attachment 6134793

Dear Judge,

The retarded thing I did that made the retard say something retarded was not as retarded as this retard is saying it is. His retarded thing made me temporarily retarded whereupon I may have said a retarded thing that he may have retardedly construed as retarded. Thus I retardedly as this retarded court to retardedly award me a billion dollar stipend to be paid bi-weekly until time stops.

Fuck you very much,

A retard

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

I hope these two keep filing these motions

I'd think eventually the judge will just get fed up and chuck the whole case due to massive retardation on behalf of both parties.

I'd feel pity for the judge but I hate anyone involved in the legal process on principal.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

Acerthorn responds
View attachment 6134793

Lol Stabby is big fucking mad. You can feel the rage in each sentence, he just about explodes by the end of the second document.

 

[ADN_VIII]

Reading these motions is like watching two retards try to box.

 

[AnOminous]

Huh, so Stebbins threatened ZellZander with a sanctions motion unless he withdrew or otherwise altered his response pleading. That sure sounds like a sanctionable intimidation tactic. Especially because he sent this in an email as a threat rather than making the motion through the Court’s docket.

Maybe the docket is going to fill up with the two of them slinging sanctions back and forth. Isn’t pro se litigation fun?

You're not allowed to file a sanctions motion under Rule 11 unless you first give the opposing party an opportunity to retract or modify the allegedly sanctionable filing. It's called a Rule 11 letter and is obligatory.

So he's still a retard and doesn't have a leg to stand on, but if he intends to file such a motion, he's at least doing the formalities.

(My personal opinion is such a sanctions motion would itself be sanctionably frivolous.)

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

Reading these motions is like watching two retards try to box.

It worked well for Wings, not so much for boogie

 

[TurboNAS]

I acknowledge that the Defendant avers that he used the download feature of
YouTube Premium to lawfully obtain his copy of the stream before I proceed to demolish that
claim with overwhelming evidence.

ZELLZANDER DESTROYED WITH OVERWHELMING FAX AND LOGIX!! Karen farms btfo! Stebbins wins statutory and punitive damages in the amount of the entire material wealth of the asteroid belt in perpetuity forevermore.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

David didn't agree to the terms I had for the take down but took down my video anyways. Time to sue him for 3 billion dollars for what he did to my thriving youtube channel

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

View attachment 6136127

David didn't agree to the terms I had for the take down but took down my video anyways. Time to sue him for 3 billion dollars for what he did to my thriving youtube channel

You can't use his videos but he's happy to use other peoples Youtube Shorts.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

You can't use his videos but he's happy to use other peoples Youtube Shorts.

Another thing I can use against him when I sue David for 3 billion dollars

 

[Dizzyuntildeath]

Another thing I can use against him when I sue David for 3 billion dollars

You can't sue him with those Unclean Hands.

 

[DSP's Tax Lawyer]

You can't sue him with those Unclean Hands.

He didn't fulfill the contractual obligations to take down the video. Unclean Hands David!!!

 

[Thumb Butler]

This seems like his own writing style.

Fake as hell, if you ask me. Can't imagine this written by a "leader of a PTSD-recovery program".

 

[CabbageTheSnackThatSlaps]

Word on the street is that Stabbins filed a case against Creetosis a few days ago, and it just got noticed. Unable to share documents at the moment due to time constraints.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Word on the street is that Stabbins filed a case against Creetosis a few days ago, and it just got noticed. Unable to share documents at the moment due to time constraints.

True, Archived:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68877116/stebbins-v-doe/

 

[ADN_VIII]

This is how many suits against Creetosis now?

 

[Useful_Mistake]

This is how many suits against Creetosis now?

This one only? Wasn't the last one dismissed?

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

More copyright claims vs YouTub and Creetosis

Hmmm, as far as I can tell Stabby thinks he found a loop hole in

"The fact that a work has been placed online or posted on a website does not
necessarily mean that the work has been published.
When copies of it are distributed to the public by sale or other transfer
of ownership if the copyright owner authorizes the end user to retain copies of the
work. Merely displaying or pe1forming a work online generally does not
constitute publication . ... Just because an end user can technically reproduce a
work does not necessarily mean that the work has been published. A copyright
owner must have expressly or implicitly authorized users to make retainable
copies of a work by downloading, printing, or other means for the work to be
considered published.
The concepts of authorization and publication can be complicated and may have
serious consequences for the author or copyright owner. For this reason, the
Office generally lets the applicant decide whether a particular work is published
or unpublished. In making this determination, you may wish to consider the
following general guidelines.
• Work made available only by streaming. Streaming is a performance, which, in
and of itself, does not constitute publication, because, as a practical matter, the
end user does not retain a copy of the work when the performance ends.
• Work for which downloading or reproduction is expressly prohibited. If there is
a notice on a website in the terms of service for the site or another obvious
place indicating that a work or the content on the site cannot be downloaded,
printed, or copied, the work or content may be deemed unpublished, because the
end user is not authorized to download, print, or otherwise distribute copies.
• Work made available through an implied license. It may be unclear whether the
copyright owner authorized the public to retain copies of the work if a work is
posted on a website and there is no evident statement in the terms of service for
the site-on the web page where the work is displayed or elsewhere-stating that
the work can be downloaded, copied, forwarded, shared, or printed.


Which means Stabby thinks because he's now calling his streams performances and not a work of art YouTube's downloader program is violating his copyright as performances are different then a piece of art so anyone downloading it, even if it's to create more art under fair use, is thus breaking his copyright due to this new gobbledygook he thinks he's found.


Once again Stabby thinks he's found a new super secret law he can use to get rich.

I would point out the two glaring flaws in his logic but since we know Stabby reads this thread (Hi David you fat useless piece if human gragbage) but I wont so Stabby can have a other loss. I'm sure if you read his case the flaws jump jump right out at you.

I'm betting the judge tosses this one using Stabbys vexatious orders as an excuse.