Intervening is a very, very bad idea.
@Null, if one of your lawyers gave you this idea, he's just trying to get the legal fund into his wallet; replace him.
Trying to get the court to reject the settlement at this point is not going to go anywhere. The 13th prohibits involuntary servitude. While Jones is a massive faggot and a retard for agreeing to those terms, he and Stebbins settled voluntarily.
* He then voluntarily submitted the takedown notice, making that moot anyway. The court is probably very relieved it no longer has to babysit two retards who have been screaming at each other for several years, and it will not take kindly to a third party attempting to rile them up again.
Even if you do win, you will have accomplished nothing. The fat retarded menace will still find some way of bothering you and running up your legal fees by dragging you into some court, somewhere, for something, if that is what he intends to do. Intervening in this case will allow him to start draining your resources without him even having to put the work in on a drafting a new complaint against you and your LLC; you'd be helping the leech start to suck your blood.
The best way to protect the site and your interests right now is to do nothing. If he files a suit against you, fight it then and there. If a retard wants to drag you into court somewhere badly enough, he will find a way of making it happen. I've heard the power to file a lawsuit described as "radically discretionary" and as the single least libertarian** part of Common Law systems. You need to make peace with the fact that frivolous litigants are as inevitable as taxes, and are only slightly less inevitable than death. If it's any consolation, the entire legal profession has hated them for centuries, so you are not suffering alone. An angel weeps every time a parasitic moron discovers the court system. That is simply our lot in this vale of sorrow.
*
Note for law autists: suppose Party A agrees to perform an action as part of a civil settlement with Party B, but then reneges and refuses to perform. Party B would be unable to seek specific performance as a remedy in a subsequent claim for breach of contract due to the 13th amendment. Would the 13th amendment similarly prevent the courts from holding Party A in contempt? I can find no articles answering this question.
** Before anyone asks: no, I am not a libertarian.