- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
even cannibals have standardsI see no Arkansas incest family devoured David over the holidays. What a failed State.
I mean..can you imagine what David's flesh would taste like? Ewwww, that's a hard pass I bet.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
even cannibals have standardsI see no Arkansas incest family devoured David over the holidays. What a failed State.
I don't think hill people have standards, they live in the same living environment.even cannibals have standards
I mean..can you imagine what David's flesh would taste like? Ewwww, that's a hard pass I bet.
That looks like an “uh oh, dad is mad” motion. How can this genius pro se superstar proceed when real lawyers start showing up?David A. Stebbins v. CMDR ImperialSalt et al
View attachment 6803522
Well that's the easiest motion to dismiss. Instead of asking for one more month or whatever's the usual, he's asking for potentially infinite time?David A. Stebbins v. CMDR ImperialSalt et al
View attachment 6803522
He's trying to claim that because he could be subject to fines due to his retardation and failure to follow rules it makes him a 'defendant' in a 'criminal' action.All that so that he can put the blame of his fuckups on a "court appointed" lawyer, though I never heard of a plaignant getting that. I though it was for defendants in criminal cases.
it will play out by the judge denying him a lawyer explaining he started the lawsuit and he did something bad and thats why he might get sanctioned.. This is not criminal and he has no right to a lawyer. David will then start working on an appeal to the supreme court that the court is biased against him and hates him instead of working on a response. At the same time he will give a really standard response claiming he did not know there were no fees deductedHe's trying to claim that because he could be subject to fines due to his retardation and failure to follow rules it makes him a 'defendant' in a 'criminal' action.
I'm curious to see how it plays out.
To be fair, he's the same guy who offered a "bounty" for Initiative Kookie's dox, and then when called out on it went "erhm I didn't PAY for a dox! Because I NEVER GOT IT!!"In 2021 Acerthorn ran his "Secret Joke Contest." To avoid legal problems only US residents were allowed to enter.
In a comment chain under one of his videos he instructs a European contestant to lie so they can participate.
View attachment 6806112
Acerthorn breaking the rules doesn't surprise me. Him being dumb enough to publicly announce it however... actually, that doesn't surprise me either.
Leonard French has gone over the latest side splitting filing and put it up on YouTube.
Local ArchiveLeonard French has gone over the latest side splitting filing and put it up on YouTube.
Shit I knew I forgot something.
Please add commentary when you do things like that. Helps you out, and us. Thanks.
Lol uploading stuff from a copyright lawyer without any transformation. yah that's a paddling.Please add commentary when you do things like that. Helps you out, and us. Thanks.
Indeed, especially considering our differences in stances on what should or should not be done to children. He supports children genital mutilation and thinks it's not only normal, but a constitutional right.French would probably jump at a chance to sue the Farms
I'd likely donate more to the farms is this obvious child molester decided to sue. Guy's aging like milk and starting to even look like your run of the mill old chomo.Indeed, especially considering our differences in stances on what should or should not be done to children. He supports children genital mutilation and thinks it's not only normal, but a constitutional right.
However, Stebbins has proven to the Court his ability to “articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970 (citing Weygandt, 718 F.2d at 954). First, Stebbins demonstrated his ability to articulate his claims in various prior motions filed with this Court, and in his current motion to appoint counsel. Specifically, Stebbins cited relevant, persuasive authority in his motion, which is considered by the Court in its decision. (See Mot. 1.) Second, the Court has asked Stebbins to show cause why his own statements were not false. This is not a complex legal issue for which an attorney is required. Indeed, it is a factual issue where Stebbins is likely the best person to respond. Consequently, weighing this factor alongside Stebbins’ likelihood of success, the Court finds that the potential sanctions are not an exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel. Thus, the motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion to appointment counsel
and the motion for extension of time to respond to the OSC.