Approved 2024-07-25 - Stebbins: DMCA via Gimp Slave

Do we intervene?

  • WARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

    Votes: 819 37.3%
  • nah

    Votes: 1,377 62.7%

  • Total voters
    2,196
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
In theory, my first instinct would be to say: Yes, intervene and deprive Stebbins of his proxy legal slave. It's a very intuitive choice because as long as Stebbins has a proxy to circumvent his vexatious litigant status with, he will continue send filings against the site in perpetuity.
However, in practise, I am reminded of how drawn-out litigation is, how completely and utterly impotent the US justice system is at achieving justice and how corrupt judges are right now. And based on these three things, my estimate is that suing Stebbins in any form right now would achieve fuck all.

What I wonder about is: How is this even legal? How is Stebbins allowed to compel someone else on a contractual basis to make filings on his behalf specifically to circumvent a legal restriction placed on him? The entire point of giving him vexatious litigant status is that he can't clog the legal system with vexatious filings anymore. If all he has to do to continue, is pay or compel someone else to do it for him, what's the point in using and applying this law in the first place? This makes about as much sense to me as
>robbing a bank yourself is illegal
>paying someone else to rob the bank on your behalf is perfectly fine


As for any arguments around the merit of abolishing the 13th amendment, I am 100% opposed to 'tools of thy enemy' thinking and I think this line of thinking is retarded, impotent and gay. If you can leverage the 13th amendment to achieve something good, you should not shy away from doing it. The best way to incentivise abolishing a law or amendment, is to use it for things its proponents don't want.
Also if we argue on a basis of abolishing the 13th amendment, I think that even in a scenario where slavery is legal, using your slaves to circumvent legal restrictions that courts have placed on you in response to your own past actions, should not fly. A slave owner's legal restrictions should also apply to all his slaves. Either that, or there should be additional law expressly prohibiting him from using his slaves to do that.

My only real and committed recommendation is to keep detailed records on any and all legal fees you incur responding to his frivolous filings. Make sure every single dollar that Turkey man's slave costs you is tallied up to bolster potential litigation with damages.
 
Last edited:
1721974344281.jpeg
 
Whether it's a good target, good way to spend your money, is it just, whether it would be effective, is slavery really bad - all those questions are irrelevant. The 18 month period will be over before the possible litigation is, you can get the same or better outcome for free.
 
I'll clarify my previous question of, "How much money we talking?"

If it's some negligible amount like 2 grand? Sure. I feel like a livestream or something can replenish that.
If it's a sizable dent that will cause problems later and piss off people that donated to stop blockheaded snake fetishists? Absolutely not.
 
I want to hear @Haramburger's take on this.
There's more con bulletpoints than pros. BUUUUT the pros are really good and it should be noted that they aren't weighted equally, the pros outweigh the cons. HOWWWWWEVERRRRRR the funds do have special rules on how they're to be used. DESPIIIITE that it's obvious that they can be used this way, assuming enough donations agree that that's the plan. UNFORRRRTUNATELY voting is gay, shame on anyone who did that, you knew better.
 
There's more con bulletpoints than pros. BUUUUT the pros are really good and it should be noted that they aren't weighted equally, the pros outweigh the cons. HOWWWWWEVERRRRRR the funds do have special rules on how they're to be used. DESPIIIITE that it's obvious that they can be used this way, assuming enough donations agree that that's the plan. UNFORRRRTUNATELY voting is gay, shame on anyone who did that, you knew better.
Well, that was before I said I would box.

Somebody somewhere organize something. Preferably someone who definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely, definitely has no idea what the Kiwifarms is.
 
What I wonder about is: How is this even legal? How is Stebbins allowed to compel someone else on a contractual basis to make filings on his behalf specifically to circumvent a legal restriction placed on him?
The dude would be acting as his agent and be on the hook for it as well as Stabby. It's illegal for both Stabby and his enslaved gimp to do illegal things on his behalf.
 
Personally, I vote no, because as Null said himself, I think it's very stupid to get involved in another lawsuit if it's not absolutely necessary for the forum. Shit can spiral out of control quickly.

Acerthorn is a pathetic retard and deserves to be humiliated in court, but there's likely far bigger threats to KF in the future.

But, if Josh or Hardin thinks it's absolutely the right move to intervene, then let's do it.
 
I vote nah. Whilst the case has some merit, there is only so much in the legal fund and no doubt something will come up that poses an existential threat to the site. It would be really fucking stupid if we intervened in some sped's failure to law properly then get fucked into the ground because we can't afford to defend ourselves directly. Keep the powder dry.
 
Nigga wasn't this supposed to be a legal defense fund??? Or am I suffering from the mandela effect?

What happened to "don't touch the p.oop / don't tip the cow"?

The obvious answer here (according to your own set of principles) is a resounding NO!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back