- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
No one wishes to know that david.Highlight from his most recent stream...
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.
No one wishes to know that david.Highlight from his most recent stream...
David, I'm suing you for the emotional destress for the mental image that gave me.Highlight from his most recent stream...
Stream was him playing Fall Guys. Interestingly cheering himself on trying to get last place, singing to the weeb music, and seething when something hits him. Ads on stream for 30 seconds every 10mins. No longer paywalled.Highlight from his most recent stream...
It is the clerks job to schedule it to the date that would best fit the judge unless the judge later decides the hearing isn't needed. I think this is just the clerk doing his job, not any sign on the judge's partAm I alone in thinking that if the Judge scheduled a hearing
I think it's pretty unlikely they devote any time to a hearing that could not possibly make the resolution of any argument in the case more obvious. If so, it would be funny, but the Ninth Circuit is one of the more unwieldy and overworked Circuits. It's pretty likely one judge is going to write (or cut and paste) the obvious and the others will sign off on it.I’m trying to figure out if that is just Appellate or if it applies to the Circuit Courts? Because it would be utterly hilarious if some of Acerthorne’s victims or other parties requested to livestream the proceedings.
I love how this retard can't take the L.Stebbins v. Polano:
For some weird reason Acerthorn replied to his own motion
View attachment 3535007
Stebbins v. Rebolo et al:
Ditto
View attachment 3535011
I can't figure out what he's trying to do here. Why is he expecting the intervenors to respond to his insanity after the cases had been dismissed with prejudice?Stebbins v. Polano:
For some weird reason Acerthorn replied to his own motion
View attachment 3535007
Stebbins v. Rebolo et al:
Ditto
View attachment 3535011
It's a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. It would be a complete waste of time and money for any party to file a response, even just stating that the parties oppose the motion.I can't figure out what he's trying to do here. Why is he expecting the intervenors to respond to his insanity after the cases had been dismissed with prejudice?
Even DSP is better at video games than this.He’s got a gift for looking up a million legal references for his lolsuits but can’t use the same skills to figure out his video games or YouTube settings?
They aren't very good references, and he uses Google Scholar to find them. See:He’s got a gift for looking up a million legal references
Now if only he could actually understand these legal references, lmao.He’s got a gift for looking up a million legal references for his lolsuits but can’t use the same skills to figure out his video games or YouTube settings?
That requires being able to not only read carefully, but read above and below the "gotcha" point.Now if only he could actually understand these legal references, lmao.
This is a remarkably well structured and well presented motion to have the Plaintiff declared a Vexatious Litigant and be subject to sanctions.They aren't very good references, and he uses Google Scholar to find them. See:
View attachment 3539110
New document:
Stebbins v. Polano:
MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief, and Incorporated Supplemental Brief, in Support of Dkt. 159 (Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration) and Dkt. 160 (Motion to Set Aside Judgment) filed by David A. Stebbins. (Stebbins, David) (Filed on 7/27/2022) (Entered: 07/27/2022)
View attachment 3539111