David Stebbins v. Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC. Case: 2:24-CV-00140, Southern District of West Virginia. - Acerthorn sues the Farms

  • 🏰 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

Stebbins v. Moon 2:24-cv-00140 — District Court, S.D. West Virginia

  • Docket No.
    2:24-cv-00140
  • Court
    District Court, S.D. West Virginia
  • Filed
    Mar 20, 2024
  • Nature of Suit
    820 Copyright
  • Cause
    17:101 Copyright Infringement
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    May 6, 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
Joshua Moon, Lolcow LLC, David Stebbins

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 51)

# Date Description Filing
48 May 6, 2026 ASSEMBLED ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL TRANSMITTED TO 4CCA re: 42 Notice of Appeal to 4CCA in 4CCA Case Number 26-1556. (ts)
47 May 6, 2026 ORDER OF 4CCA as to 42 Notice of Appeal to 4CCA in 4CCA Case No. 26-1556. The court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (cmb)
46 May 6, 2026 NOTICE OF APPELLATE CASE OPENING BY 4CCA re: 42 Notice of Appeal to 4CCA in 4CCA Case No. 26-1556. Case Manager: C. Halupa. (cmb)
45 May 4, 2026 RECORD REQUEST in 4CCA Case Number 26-1556. (skm)
44 May 4, 2026 NOTICE OF APPELLATE CASE OPENING BY 4CCA re: 42 Notice of Appeal to 4CCA in 4CCA Case No. 26-1556. Case Manager: C. Halupa. (skm)
View all 51 filings

In re: David Stebbins 26-1398 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

  • Docket No.
    26-1398
  • Court
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • Filed
    Apr 6, 2026
  • Last Filing
    May 4, 2026

Parties (1)

Parties
In re: DAVID A. STEBBINS

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 17)

# Date Description Filing
17 May 4, 2026 RESPONSE/ANSWER by David A. Stebbins to Motion to dismiss appeal [15]. Nature of response: in opposition. [1001972939] [26-1398] David Stebbins [Entered: 05/05/2026 12:58 AM]
16 Apr 29, 2026 RESPONSE/ANSWER by Lolcow LLC and Joshua Moon to Motion to strike [14]. Nature of response: in opposition. [1001971074] [26-1398] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 04/30/2026 09:12 PM]
15 Apr 28, 2026 MOTION by Lolcow LLC and Joshua Moon to dismiss appeal [15]. Date and method of service: 04/29/2026 ecf. [1001969770] [26-1398] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 04/29/2026 12:56 PM]
14 Apr 22, 2026 MOTION by David A. Stebbins to strike brief Motion to Strike Docket Entry #13, the Defendant's Reply to my Response to their Motion to Reconsider.. Date and method of service: 04/23/2026 ecf. [1001965881] [26-1398] David Stebbins [Entered: 04/23/2026 12:50 PM]
13 Apr 22, 2026 REPLY by Lolcow LLC and Joshua Moon to response [12].. [1001965846] [26-1398] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 04/23/2026 12:16 PM]
View all 17 filings

David Stebbins v. Joshua Moon 26-1556 — Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

  • Docket No.
    26-1556
  • Court
    Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • Filed
    May 4, 2026
  • Nature of Suit
    3820 Copyright
  • Last Filing
    May 16, 2026

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 18)

# Date Description Filing
18 May 16, 2026 REPLY by Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC to response [17], Motion to reconsider [15].. [1001980117] [26-1556] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 05/17/2026 10:15 PM]
17 May 15, 2026 RESPONSE/ANSWER by David A. Stebbins Response in Opposition to Motion to Reconsider to notice requesting response [16]. Nature of response: in opposition. [1001980096] [26-1556] David Stebbins [Entered: 05/16/2026 06:09 PM]
16 May 6, 2026 NOTICE ISSUED to David A. Stebbins requesting response to Motion to reconsider [15]. Response due 05/18/2026.[1001974896].. [26-1556] CH [Entered: 05/07/2026 11:47 AM]
15 May 6, 2026 MOTION by Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC to reconsider Order [12]. Date and method of service: 05/07/2026 ecf. [1001974873] [26-1556] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 05/07/2026 11:34 AM]
14 May 6, 2026 ORDER filed deferring action on Motion to remand case filed by Appellees Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC [7]. Copies to all parties. [1001974770] [26-1556] CH [Entered: 05/07/2026 10:11 AM]
View all 18 filings
Sintharia said:
I can't focus on anything but the fact that the case manager is "Chalupa."
Click to expand...
You think this is funny? Chalupa is the wife of my vewy good fweind. Chimichanga.

hq720.jpg
 
Fuck yeah, Hardin with the judicial equivalent of "g𝓮𝓽 𝔂𝓸𝓾𝓻 𝓪𝓼𝓼 𝓫𝓪𝓬𝓴 𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮♂" Yeah, you get your fat ass back to the district court, boi, and you CONFESS and COMPLY. Where's my affidavit of indigency, boi, you better not be trying to hide recent settlement money.

"Twice- or thrice-declared vexatious litigant." Keep going! Pump those numbers up!
 
This appeal went from 0 to 60 retardedly fast. Considering the previous appeal still isn't officially moot, I'm sure the 4th is thrilled to recognize a repeat guest.

ETA: Did I miss something, or did the District Court not order either of these two things? We're still in the Stebbins v Moon docket, right?

1778017066035.png
 
Last edited:
For those reading Hardin's motion, who might have been confused as I was, here's Fed. R. App. 24 (a).

As I understand it, for Stabby to appeal the district court's denial of his IFP application, he's supposed to file a separate IFP application (also in the district court) for the appeal ("a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court").

If his initial IFP application had been approved and he was appealing on different grounds, he could have proceeded using the prior approval ("a party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action... may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization").

This is different than the procedure he followed when seeking the writ of mandamus, since that was an original action in the circuit court (as opposed to an appeal). In that case, he filed his IFP application directly to the 4th Circuit.

Edit to add: On the one hand, Stabby has a point: a second IFP application to the same court that just denied the first IFP application seems like a silly hoop to jump through. But as a taxpayer who has to pay for Stabby's bullshit abuse of the court system, I think the rules serve a good purpose. As I read them, the second IFP denial will basically ensure Stabby has to put up the $400 or whatever to partially offset the costs of wasting the court's time. I'm glad Hardin pointed this out, as it lets the 4th Circuit dispose of the matter without even having to consider Stabby's absurd request for a free lawyer in his quest for billions of dollars from the Farms.
 
Last edited:
Harvey Danger said:
This appeal went from 0 to 60 retardedly fast. Considering the previous appeal still isn't officially moot, I'm sure the 4th is thrilled to recognize a repeat guest.
Click to expand...
The Fourth Circuit is often called a "rocket docket" because they operate very efficiently and quickly (at least as federal courts go). This "appeal" could be done by tomorrow. I'd be surprised if it lingers on longer than a week without a GTFO.
 
Billy Beeple said:
For those reading Hardin's motion, who might have been confused as I was, here's Fed. R. App. 24 (a).

As I understand it, for Stabby to appeal the district court's denial of his IFP application, he's supposed to file a separate IFP application (also in the district court) for the appeal ("a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court").
Click to expand...
Yes, and he knows that, and just refused to do it anyway, and then, stupidest of all, admitted to it in filings. Sanctionable level of stupid.
 
LiquidChrisRespecter said:
How many times has he demanded a court-appointed lawyer slave for his elective civil suits now?
Click to expand...
I think he has a good chance of actually getting it this time. Good, as in, its not close to 0. He's raised an "interesting" constitutional question, and the 4th circuit may want to address it because its novel and interesting. But they also won't want Stebbins to argue it. So they may actually appoint him an attorney solely for addressing the IFP issue. But that really depends alot on how interested the 4th circuit is with the question vs. how annoyed they are with Stebbins.

*edit*
To addendum, the 4th circuit is in Virginia, and Virginia is "weird" in how it views procedure. The trial often takes place behind closed doors informally between all the attorneys, and then the decision is aired out publicly to follow the rules. The motions already predetermined. Trials in Virginia are about as real as WWE wrestling, and its only when they don't go as planned that anything interesting happens. This mentality extends to the federal courts in the State, which has given them the reputation of being "really fast" compared to other districts and also "strict constructionists" about the rules. The rules and precedents are the "plot" you see, and Virginia courts hate anything that doesn't follow the plot.

The fact that Stebbins is doing something new in the 4th circuit may be enough for them to decide this is worth entertaining for the next season.
 
Last edited:
mindlessobserver said:
I think he has a good chance of actually getting it this time. Good, as in, its not close to 0. He's raised an "interesting" constitutional question, and the 4th circuit may want to address it because its novel and interesting. But they also won't want Stebbins to argue it. So they may actually appoint him an attorney solely for addressing the IFP issue. But that really depends alot on how interested the 4th circuit is with the question vs. how annoyed they are with Stebbins.
Click to expand...
I don't think "are all of the district courts in the 4th Circuit biased against David Stebbins" is an interesting constitutional question. It's easily answered, "no."

Is having to pay a filing fee to proceed after being denied IFP status an unconstitutional denial of access to the court system? Also easily answered, "no." Especially in this case, when one private party is seeking to enrich himself from another private party who he feels wronged him.

I'd maybe have more sympathy for Stabby being poor if this was a criminal case or if he was seeking equitable relief against a government defendant, but the bottom line here is that he feels entitled to the taxpayers funding his dreams of striking it rich as a professional Plaintiff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom