- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It means he can serve on an address that may or may not be the actual Doe defendant. And if service is successful, the defendant has a deadline to respond.
Skitzocow David Anthony Stebbins / Acerthorn / stebbinsd / fayettevillesdavid - Litigious autist, obese livestreamer, elder abuser, violent schizo, ladyboy importer, hot dog enjoyer, wereturkey.
- Thread starter Mister Mint
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2020
I think I said this before but what the hell is wrong with fayetteville? why are so many deranged cows coming from there?
Is it the tyson chicken plants? the nugget fumes destroying the myelin in their brains?
Is it the tyson chicken plants? the nugget fumes destroying the myelin in their brains?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2023
NW Arkansas is where most of the (white) insane fags and lunatics congregate in the state because nowhere else in the state will tolerate them, on top of it being where the most famous college in the state is. It attracts the worst. There's a whole stretch from the Harrison/Eureka Springs area all the way to Fayetteville where I witnessed more faggotry, meth addict antics and general lunacy than anywhere else I've ever stayed for an extended period.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Succeeded in the sense that he gets to further his lawsuit against Zell, failed in the sense that the court denied his subpoena against SidAlpha (though nevertheless granted his IFP motion and allowed him to try again)
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2021
I remember driving through the backwoods of NW Arkansas once and seeing a literal fucking wizard or warlock or some shit standing on the side of the road next to a schizo maga sign
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2023
Average Carroll County resident
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
News on Acerthorn's appeal:
David Stebbins v. Karl Polano APPEAL:
David Stebbins v. Karl Polano APPEAL:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
Maybe if he makes the same arguments again they’ll totally work this time. Even if he admits to being rejected for copyright and not intending to film himself. Apart from those fatal claims he made himself I’d say our boy Stebbins has an excellent shot this time around.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
Jesus he's EXHAUSTING. He's way too convinced of his inerrancy. Just... Ugh
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
For anyone too lazy to read all 44 pages, this page is the perfect summary of his arguments. You can see just how malding he was while writing this.
Stebbins v. CMDR ImperialSalt
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
He is of course absolutely wrong about copyright. The three requirements for a work to be copyrightable are: originality, creativity, and fixation. If you had no intent to create it, there is obviously no creativity. The creativity in a copyrightable work can be extremely minimal, for instance shooting cans of spray paint to create a "painting," but it can't be entirely nonexistent.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
Thank you for this. I've gotten pretty good at trudging through these legal documents, but I couldn't make it more than a few pages into the Supplemental Argument portion before my eyes glazed over. I might have been able to get farther if the insanity was novel in some way, but having to read the same bad arguments from a month ago for a second (or third, or fourth) time, with nothing seemingly learned from any of the responses smacking those arguments down, is brain poison.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
That's the Stebbins experience. He's convinced of the correctness of his arguments so there's no force in Heaven or Earth that can sway him. My favorite is his summary ranting about all the Constitutional rights he's been denied in this lawsuit. Those were...? Oh yeah, none. Copyright isn't a constitutional right.
Plus he's now convinced that he's lost all copyrights to his other works because he misunderstood the judge. No, Stebbins, you have lost the presumption of a valid copyright because you didn't have one and are trying to press a lawsuit based on that lie. The court is noticing you'll need to include official registration numbers in your pleadings instead of them assuming you have that at the outset.
-----------------------------
It's cathartic to have a place to yell into the wind at this weirdo. Let's say you break the golden rule of the Farms and comment on his youtube page saying any of this stuff. Boom, welcome to "these are dang dirty trolls trying to harass me!" and he'll make it a personal mission to hunt you down and try to serve a frivolous lawsuit against you. He's got nothing else going on so he can dedicate every single day to trying to mess with your life. That's what is so awful about Stebbins, if he feels wronged he's going to try and use the courts as a bludgeon to get his way.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You'd have to pay me to read all this bullshit. It doesn't even have the occasional charm of Russhole Greer's idiotic arguments, which often have entertaining malapropisms and give you a look into his dumb mind.
Stabby's writing is just boring, stupid and annoying, the legal language equivalent of that mentally retarded turkey gobbling noise he makes.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
Stebbins v. Google LLC:
53:
54:
David Stebbins v. Karl Polano APPEAL
@AnOminous what do you make of the docket 13?
53:
54:
David Stebbins v. Karl Polano APPEAL
@AnOminous what do you make of the docket 13?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I guess they want the actual fact-finder to decide on it and maybe think the record needs to be developed first. It also seems to be something the District Court gets first dibs on.
He might do less spastic flailing if he has to pay up front for his losing actions.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2017
as opposed to the repetitive shit from the other day, this is juicy lawcow content. "Emergency Motion for Leave to Appear Remotely or in the Alternative to Recuse" is such a fucking funny motion title. before i even read the content my eyebrows shot up
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
This reached the district level and Acerthorn is already sperging about it:David Stebbins v. Karl Polano APPEAL
@AnOminous what do you make of the docket 13?
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
IFP (in forma pauperis). Basically, if you are poor enough, the government pays the filling fees for you. And since he doesn't hire a lawyer his costs are pretty much non-existent.
Most Western countries have something similar to IFP. UK had the same system until 1949 when they replaced it with easier way of getting free solicitor help, but court fees can still be waived by the courts. Germany has Prozesskostenhilfe. France has similar provisions too. That's just a few examples. That is not to say they aren't different from IFP, they are. UK, for example, does not count recreational activity costs as part of the consideration, US does (depending on the state. California, for example, doesn't, Louisiana does)
US court system has safeguards in place, and despite how often Null complains, these safeguards have failed to protect him only ~33% of the time, which for Government program is rather decent. Out of 9 cases we have been involved in, Null needed to hire a lawyer for only 3.
Issue with the safeguards is twofold, people in charge are often lazy, and when not, they prefer to err on the side of the plaintiff, in order to try to not stifle genuine action. Of course, sometimes the frivolousness is only visible after the opposing party had its say. At any rate, his home court system has limited his lawsuits, and Google attempts to limit them everywhere.
Last edited: