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

How much will David sue the farms for?

  • $0/no suit

    Votes: 118 5.2%
  • Hundreds

    Votes: 17 0.7%
  • Thousands

    Votes: 46 2.0%
  • Millions

    Votes: 185 8.1%
  • Billions

    Votes: 137 6.0%
  • Trillions

    Votes: 491 21.6%
  • A steamy night with Null in a lace negligee

    Votes: 1,283 56.3%

  • Total voters
    2,277
The court needs to sua sponte hyper-rape Stebbins because of this. This is some of the most insane lolsuit behaviour yet.
1754593314710.webp
"How are you affected Jarrod?"
Stebbins, you impersonating the opposing party to fraudulently grant your own motion they hadn't even seen, and then you blackmail him?
 
Last edited:
The court needs to sua sponte hyper-rape Stebbins because of this. This is some of the most insane lolsuit behaviour yet.
View attachment 7749835
"How are you affected Jarrod?"
Stebbins, you impersonating the opposing party to fraudulently grant your own motion they hadn't even seen, and then you blackmail him?
Just fumigate his apartment with him still in it.
 
I'm excited for Stabbin's turkey-gobbling response to this, how will he justify multiple felony crimes?
Fingers crossed the next filing is a warrant.
(Yes I know that it would be in a separate criminal case)
 
I really hope Null shared this unfolding clusterfuck with Hardin, I think he would appreciate this turkey shoot.
Maybe Hardin is already monitoring Stabby's other vexatious cases considering that Null has explicitly stated that they will try to get him another vexlit label, but if not, then he should tell Hardin. Stabby is not only committing forgery, he is also trying to blackmail someone with more vexatious litigation, this has to have an impact.
 
1754599907765.webp
This part is exceptional, FRCP Rule 61 does not shield Wereturkey in committing intentional acts of deception.
Stebbins wilfully deprived David Jarrod of his right to be heard, fraudulently representing the opposing party’s position without consent, authorisation, or even awareness.
This is a textbook violation of substantial rights. It not only falls outside the scope of Rule 61, but also squarely violates multiple provisions of Rule 11, including the duty of honesty and the requirement that all filings be properly signed by a party or authorised representative.

The ideal cherry on top of Stebbins' new shit-sandwich should've been Jarrod asking the court to refer Stebbins' conduct to the relevant prosecutor's office. Hopefully the court will do it sue sponte.
 
Last edited:
should've been Jarrod asking the court to refer Stebbins' conduct to the relevant prosecutor's office. Hopefully the court will do it sue sponte.
If this grimy lump of shit had his computer confiscated as evidence it would be a national day of rejoicing. Imagine this reprobate being forced to fatfinger his lulzsuits on a phone like Greer.
 
I wouldn't get too excited as I highly doubt David is worth the courts time to really do anything more then enforce the per-existing sanctions and give him a small slap on the wrist so there is a paper trail if he tries it again.

Remember Chudda's Rule

Nothing Ever Happens
 
Well-formulated response by Jones (or whomever is advising his writing). I think in particular he creates a pretty good juxtaposition: Jones' filing is pretty well-reasoned and appropriately humble when it needs to be (e.g., acknowledging its not his place to tell the Court what authority it has) while Stebbins' filings continue to marinate in blithe arrogance (e.g., instructing the Court what he thinks it HAS to do, or accusing the Court of just being biased against him).

Also, apologies to everyone for my earlier Devil's advocacy where I thought that maybe Jones just sent him a bland digital signature for simplicity's sake. This is the risk of playing Devil's advocate - sometimes the Devil really is just that much of an idiot.
 
Is this law stream large* enough?
I'm a few minutes in, our resident Commander & Chief states his belief that Wereturkey is getting a "five-figure sanction but no jail time."
He did have a hand in Jarrod's reply, saying he had a "little bit of input".

Spectre states he helped write various points and found numerous cites but "left Jarrod to do the formatting." It seems so far its a mix of Jarrod's own work and Spectre supporting.

He particularly remarks that Jarrod made several arguments that surprised him with its quality and "wished he came up with it."

Spectre says "several people who fucking hate David" wanted Jarrod "to bring in immediate Rule 11 Sanctions" but "the purpose was to get this in front of the judge right here, right now, end of fucking discussion that David broke the law, before he could withdraw the motion."

Spectre says he came up "unclean hands" swipe as a reference to the Stebbins v Polano case, where Stebbins supposedly used the term often. Someone else wanted to call Stebbins an "ethical black hole" but unclean hands was chosen instead.
 
Last edited:
Back