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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

How much will David sue the farms for?

  • $0/no suit

    Votes: 118 5.3%
  • Hundreds

    Votes: 17 0.8%
  • Thousands

    Votes: 45 2.0%
  • Millions

    Votes: 184 8.2%
  • Billions

    Votes: 136 6.1%
  • Trillions

    Votes: 483 21.6%
  • A steamy night with Null in a lace negligee

    Votes: 1,257 56.1%

  • Total voters
    2,240
(Gobbling intensifies)
My favorite paragraph so far is:
14. The Court denied me leave to amend the complaint without giving any reason. This, however, has already been held by the Supreme Court to constitute an abuse of discretion, per se. See Foman v. Davis, 371 US 178, 182 (1962):



15. The closest the Court has come to giving a reason why leave to amend should not be given is because “Briefing for Defendant’s motion to dismiss ... has completed. If Defendant1 is given leave to amend, the motion practice would simply restart, with resources thus spent wasted.”

—- looks like the court did give a reason for not allowing amendment. Thanks for documenting it in your motion. That’s some galaxy brained reasoning right there.

Better still is the exhibit Stebbins attached showing the Google attorney telling him to pull the other exhibit because Stebbins didn’t redact the attorney’s personal cell number but made certain to clean up his own number. Haha our boy is a pro at ticking people off.
 
(Gobbling intensifies)
My favorite paragraph so far is:
14. The Court denied me leave to amend the complaint without giving any reason. This, however, has already been held by the Supreme Court to constitute an abuse of discretion, per se. See Foman v. Davis, 371 US 178, 182 (1962):



15. The closest the Court has come to giving a reason why leave to amend should not be given is because “Briefing for Defendant’s motion to dismiss ... has completed. If Defendant1 is given leave to amend, the motion practice would simply restart, with resources thus spent wasted.”

—- looks like the court did give a reason for not allowing amendment. Thanks for documenting it in your motion. That’s some galaxy brained reasoning right there.

Better still is the exhibit Stebbins attached showing the Google attorney telling him to pull the other exhibit because Stebbins didn’t redact the attorney’s personal cell number but made certain to clean up his own number. Haha our boy is a pro at ticking people off.
Because it doesn't cost him a penny he doesn't care if the case has to go through rounds and rounds of the same motions. But it sure costs his victims doesn't it? He just wants them to settle with him. It's pure extortion. It's all he knows how to do honestly. Same thing with not redacting the cell phone number. He wants others to go after them. But not him. He's the most arrogant asshole in a court room I've ever seen.
 
Because it doesn't cost him a penny he doesn't care if the case has to go through rounds and rounds of the same motions. But it sure costs his victims doesn't it? He just wants them to settle with him. It's pure extortion. It's all he knows how to do honestly. Same thing with not redacting the cell phone number. He wants others to go after them. But not him. He's the most arrogant asshole in a court room I've ever seen.
I mean, this is his last chance. After this, he becomes vexatious and won't be able to pull this crap. Right? Please don't tell me I am being too optimistic about the American justice system
 
I mean, this is his last chance. After this, he becomes vexatious and won't be able to pull this crap. Right? Please don't tell me I am being too optimistic about the American justice system
He has a long way to go before he's banned from the entire court system. My personal opinion is the current vexlit designation only applies to the parties and courts it explicitly mentions.
 
He has a long way to go before he's banned from the entire court system. My personal opinion is the current vexlit designation only applies to the parties and courts it explicitly mentions.
He's a vexatious litigant in half of Arkansas and in one federal district. He'll just file in a other.
Welp, what a way to ruin a day
 
Stebbins v. Google LLC
View attachment 5341215

GOOGLE POINTS OUT THAT ACERTHORN LIED
View attachment 5341225

It cost Google nearly 2 grand to file the earlier notice of non compliance:
View attachment 5341237
ACERBROS BTFO, ANOTHER SOYGLE W AND FATTHORNS L! :story:
btw this is how I see him.
IMG_3101.jpeg
 
Back