- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
For the entry on this on the fund website can the image be a crude hand turkey?
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.
DSP's Tax Lawyer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2021
David might still agree to drop the lolsuit for a steamy night with Null in a lace nigligee
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2017
The difference here between Null and Stebbin's normal victims is Null is A. Publicly lnown and not dodging service, B. Already represented by actual competent lawyers and funded.
Stebbins is a Violent Autistic Psychopath who already has vexatious status in his own state of Alabama, the 9th Circuit and possibly the 11th Circuit. He has a pre-filing requirement regarding copyright claims (which he seems to have avoided here? Or did I miss that?) And a history of fraudulent filings with the Copyright Office.
This is literally a situation where Null and Hardin can just dump Stabby's record on the Judge day 1 and request costs and Sanctions. If they really want to be nasty countersue. It's clear from Stabby's filings that he saw Greer v Lolcow and sought to deliberately engineer a situation to make a claim using it. This is Fraud. The Court frowns on such things. Courts generally frown on things such as Stabbins.
Stebbins is a Violent Autistic Psychopath who already has vexatious status in his own state of Alabama, the 9th Circuit and possibly the 11th Circuit. He has a pre-filing requirement regarding copyright claims (which he seems to have avoided here? Or did I miss that?) And a history of fraudulent filings with the Copyright Office.
This is literally a situation where Null and Hardin can just dump Stabby's record on the Judge day 1 and request costs and Sanctions. If they really want to be nasty countersue. It's clear from Stabby's filings that he saw Greer v Lolcow and sought to deliberately engineer a situation to make a claim using it. This is Fraud. The Court frowns on such things. Courts generally frown on things such as Stabbins.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2021
I hope that this somehow becomes a meme case that lawyers start following and the Supreme Court takes the Greer Case solely to laugh at how retarded it is and this by extension.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2023
This is kinda why I think this suit is a good thing, while it sucks having to spend money to fight the goblin if it goes to trial West Virginia sees Acerthorn using the 10ths insane ruling and either has to uphold it or counter it. That makes it the 3rd court this year the 10th has fucked over and could lend credence to the Supreme Court doing something to unfuck the 10thd decision.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
I am mystified by the formatting here. Did he re-word this paragraph at some point and forget to remove the hyphens between syllables in cut off words, or is he just doing his Stabbins thing of trying to inject what he thinks is personality into his legal filings?
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Under what basis would he ever be entitled to that?
Even if he had a completely valid and rational complaint, and his copyrights were violated here, he shouldn't be entitled to reimbursement of his copyright registration fees from KF or anybody. That's just something IP owners have to pay to better protect their IP.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
You forget that he's an imbecile.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
Ok I've had chance to read thru the lolsuit
The first page is all about how evil Kiwi Farms, and by association, Jersh is. Stabby lists all the usual drivel we've all seen a thousand times before. We all know it, we all love it. The Cloudflare non-service notice, the Wikipedia page, the kill count, the suicides, the harassments (Greer in particular is stressed for reasons to follow) and of course the most evil of all the Doxxings. All laid out for the court to see just how bad we are all as people and how by association Jersh is the worst because he's the owner/leader.
Ok, that all good and what. I'm sure the jurnoslimes are glad for the clicks and all but what does that have to do with Stabby's claims? Well...nothing actually. Not a single damn thing but I'd guess Stabby wants to convince the judge to side with him as the good guy vs Jersh as the ebil Kiwi Farms Hitler. I dunno..it worked for the 10th circuit judges so maybe?
Ok then Stabby goes on to explain to the judge exactly how You Tube works..for some reason. He goes on and on about the algorythm. About engagement and metrics and whut not. I guess to tie in the fact that Stabby gets money from his shitty little channel and Jersh allowing posting of his video's on the Farms robs him of this potential gain. OK fair enough, it's a bit too deep into autistic details but Stabby has a point here. Posting his videos to other sites robs him of the penny's he earns from his tiny view count.
Too bad Jersh took down Stabby' video when he honoured the DCMA. He also tells how he paid for the songs in the video and again goes into autistic detail about his rights and contract with said creator of the "songs". I put songs in quotation because they're more like 20 second music clips that he plays low key in the background of all his latest videos for this exact reason. 10 songs, even if they are only 15 to 60 seconds, are still 10 copyright claim at a sweet 150K per pop. That kind of dosh will buy many premium hot dogs!
Page two is Stabby going on about how Bruno's video is 100%, not possible in anyway, no sirree, only a moron could agree fair use. Why? Well because Stabby says so. Really that's his ploy. The video commentary added is of "Low Quality" and "minimal effort" and "threadbare" and "adds nothing to the value" ect ect. I'm guessing here that Stabby is trying to get ahead of the 8 ball as in 4 of his last lost lolsuits Fair Use Defence has fucked him over, well in Stabby's eyes anyway, so he wants to clearly state to the judge that Bruno's video is defiantly, not in any way acceptable fair use. Again his arguments are pretty weak based solely upon Stabby's opinion. However, for once, Stabby isn't just out right telling the judge that he must agree because Stabby said so. So this is some improvement in our boy, he's still talking down to the judge but not outright telling him what to think...yet.
Again, this has nothing to do with his lolsuit. He's accusing Jersh of abetting copyright infringement not Burno. More importantly he's using the 10th circuit ruling to accuse Jersh of contributory copyright infringement so all his blather about Bruno's video is pointless. As Stabby is not suing Bruno but Jersh this again is pretty pointless.
Ok on to the meat and potatoes of the suit, Jersh calling Stabby a "fat smug condescending prick who uses the court system to harass people into submission. He seem's like a really sad, vacuous old man rotting away in his decrepit apartment." According to Stabby by saying this Jersh is now liable for contributory copyright infringement ala the 10th Circuit Appeals Court for belittling Stabby's attempt to enforce his copyright claims and Jersh loses Safe Harbor protections for posting Stabby's DCMA because again 10th Circuit ruling of encouraging copyright violations by advising Bruno how to adjust his video to be Fair Use. This is the Greer case fall out, mocking someone is now, at least according to the morons at the 10th circuit, contributing to copyright infringement.
Ok, so basically Stabby is saying that Jersh is 100% liable for all the copyright claims because he mocked Stabby, the fat gross vexatious assberger he is, and because he instructed Bruno on what measure to take to make his video fair use. This is the meat of the claim, the rest of the drivel Stabby spewed out onto the court is pretty meaningless.
So did Jersh mock Stabby? Well yes. Does that have anything to do with copyright? Well in a normal world no but thanks to the 10th circuit Stabby can now claim that Jersh mocking him and posting his DMCA is an actual copyright violation and thus Jersh now owes Stabby 1 million dollars (plus 15 bucks for postage). Added on top Stabby is asking that the judge rule not only should Bruno be banned but he sneaks in a ask that they judge also rule that any monies owed to him will not be dis-chargeable by any means upto and including bankruptcy. So if Stabby wins a million bucks Jersh has no way to avoid paying except for maybe death but then again Stabby may just sue Jersh's family for recompenses.
Does Stabby have a case? In normal world...no. Not really. Jersh should have Section 430 protection. Mocking a fat retard and helping someone change a video to make it fair use should in no way make you a contributory to a copyright claim. However this is clown world and the morons of the 10th circuit have shown us that some judges will throw out the law to punish those they see as "bad" no matter what or how dangerous a precedent it sets. But on the plus side if Jersh does somehow lose this case it will set up a very dangerous precedent that will affect a lot of people so Stabby could find himself embroiled in a much bigger appeal as many media companies will look at said ruling and go Hell No!
Is Bruno liable for copyright? That I don't know, I'm not a copyright judge. Bruno did make changes to Stabby's video so it would be up to Stabby to convince a judge that Bruno's changes are not enough to qualify for Fair Use but Stabby will never sue Bruno as he's has zero methods to get Bruno's personal info and you can't sue a forum name so that issue is moot.
My bets?
I bet the case gets tossed because Jersh has 430 for his fat retard comments, Stabby could try to sue for defamation like his did with @SidAlpha but I'd wager that won't get anywhere. And advising someone on how to change a video to make it Fair Use is also not a crime nor does it involve one in said copyright violation. If it did then what about You Tubes DMCA scanner? That tells channel owners how to adjust their video to avoid copyright issues. What about copyright lawyers? They assist their clients in avoiding copyright issues, are they to be held accountable for that? Nah, this pushes the envelope too far. I feel that the judge, baring some activist nutcase with a grudge, will see that the 10th fucked up and went too far and will rule as I said. Just a guess though, I'm just a lolyer after all.
thank you for coming to my TED talk, please try the veal.
The first page is all about how evil Kiwi Farms, and by association, Jersh is. Stabby lists all the usual drivel we've all seen a thousand times before. We all know it, we all love it. The Cloudflare non-service notice, the Wikipedia page, the kill count, the suicides, the harassments (Greer in particular is stressed for reasons to follow) and of course the most evil of all the Doxxings. All laid out for the court to see just how bad we are all as people and how by association Jersh is the worst because he's the owner/leader.
Ok, that all good and what. I'm sure the jurnoslimes are glad for the clicks and all but what does that have to do with Stabby's claims? Well...nothing actually. Not a single damn thing but I'd guess Stabby wants to convince the judge to side with him as the good guy vs Jersh as the ebil Kiwi Farms Hitler. I dunno..it worked for the 10th circuit judges so maybe?
Ok then Stabby goes on to explain to the judge exactly how You Tube works..for some reason. He goes on and on about the algorythm. About engagement and metrics and whut not. I guess to tie in the fact that Stabby gets money from his shitty little channel and Jersh allowing posting of his video's on the Farms robs him of this potential gain. OK fair enough, it's a bit too deep into autistic details but Stabby has a point here. Posting his videos to other sites robs him of the penny's he earns from his tiny view count.
Too bad Jersh took down Stabby' video when he honoured the DCMA. He also tells how he paid for the songs in the video and again goes into autistic detail about his rights and contract with said creator of the "songs". I put songs in quotation because they're more like 20 second music clips that he plays low key in the background of all his latest videos for this exact reason. 10 songs, even if they are only 15 to 60 seconds, are still 10 copyright claim at a sweet 150K per pop. That kind of dosh will buy many premium hot dogs!
Page two is Stabby going on about how Bruno's video is 100%, not possible in anyway, no sirree, only a moron could agree fair use. Why? Well because Stabby says so. Really that's his ploy. The video commentary added is of "Low Quality" and "minimal effort" and "threadbare" and "adds nothing to the value" ect ect. I'm guessing here that Stabby is trying to get ahead of the 8 ball as in 4 of his last lost lolsuits Fair Use Defence has fucked him over, well in Stabby's eyes anyway, so he wants to clearly state to the judge that Bruno's video is defiantly, not in any way acceptable fair use. Again his arguments are pretty weak based solely upon Stabby's opinion. However, for once, Stabby isn't just out right telling the judge that he must agree because Stabby said so. So this is some improvement in our boy, he's still talking down to the judge but not outright telling him what to think...yet.
Again, this has nothing to do with his lolsuit. He's accusing Jersh of abetting copyright infringement not Burno. More importantly he's using the 10th circuit ruling to accuse Jersh of contributory copyright infringement so all his blather about Bruno's video is pointless. As Stabby is not suing Bruno but Jersh this again is pretty pointless.
Ok on to the meat and potatoes of the suit, Jersh calling Stabby a "fat smug condescending prick who uses the court system to harass people into submission. He seem's like a really sad, vacuous old man rotting away in his decrepit apartment." According to Stabby by saying this Jersh is now liable for contributory copyright infringement ala the 10th Circuit Appeals Court for belittling Stabby's attempt to enforce his copyright claims and Jersh loses Safe Harbor protections for posting Stabby's DCMA because again 10th Circuit ruling of encouraging copyright violations by advising Bruno how to adjust his video to be Fair Use. This is the Greer case fall out, mocking someone is now, at least according to the morons at the 10th circuit, contributing to copyright infringement.
Ok, so basically Stabby is saying that Jersh is 100% liable for all the copyright claims because he mocked Stabby, the fat gross vexatious assberger he is, and because he instructed Bruno on what measure to take to make his video fair use. This is the meat of the claim, the rest of the drivel Stabby spewed out onto the court is pretty meaningless.
So did Jersh mock Stabby? Well yes. Does that have anything to do with copyright? Well in a normal world no but thanks to the 10th circuit Stabby can now claim that Jersh mocking him and posting his DMCA is an actual copyright violation and thus Jersh now owes Stabby 1 million dollars (plus 15 bucks for postage). Added on top Stabby is asking that the judge rule not only should Bruno be banned but he sneaks in a ask that they judge also rule that any monies owed to him will not be dis-chargeable by any means upto and including bankruptcy. So if Stabby wins a million bucks Jersh has no way to avoid paying except for maybe death but then again Stabby may just sue Jersh's family for recompenses.
Does Stabby have a case? In normal world...no. Not really. Jersh should have Section 430 protection. Mocking a fat retard and helping someone change a video to make it fair use should in no way make you a contributory to a copyright claim. However this is clown world and the morons of the 10th circuit have shown us that some judges will throw out the law to punish those they see as "bad" no matter what or how dangerous a precedent it sets. But on the plus side if Jersh does somehow lose this case it will set up a very dangerous precedent that will affect a lot of people so Stabby could find himself embroiled in a much bigger appeal as many media companies will look at said ruling and go Hell No!
Is Bruno liable for copyright? That I don't know, I'm not a copyright judge. Bruno did make changes to Stabby's video so it would be up to Stabby to convince a judge that Bruno's changes are not enough to qualify for Fair Use but Stabby will never sue Bruno as he's has zero methods to get Bruno's personal info and you can't sue a forum name so that issue is moot.
My bets?
I bet the case gets tossed because Jersh has 430 for his fat retard comments, Stabby could try to sue for defamation like his did with @SidAlpha but I'd wager that won't get anywhere. And advising someone on how to change a video to make it Fair Use is also not a crime nor does it involve one in said copyright violation. If it did then what about You Tubes DMCA scanner? That tells channel owners how to adjust their video to avoid copyright issues. What about copyright lawyers? They assist their clients in avoiding copyright issues, are they to be held accountable for that? Nah, this pushes the envelope too far. I feel that the judge, baring some activist nutcase with a grudge, will see that the 10th fucked up and went too far and will rule as I said. Just a guess though, I'm just a lolyer after all.
thank you for coming to my TED talk, please try the veal.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2020
230
430 is: 26 U.S. Code § 430 - Minimum funding standards for single-employer defined benefit pension plans (among many others)
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2023
Seeing this guy do his crazy shit since like, a year or two ago, and that he's still going is hilarious.
On one hand, I admire how he can somehow keep this up for literally years. From stabbing his dad, to suing a jail he claimed he was never arrested by when he was, and suing nobody youtubers and the Farms
but on the other, he doesn't have the tenacity or integrity to hit the gym, get a job, or beat a rat in Dark Souls.
I wonder what kind of delusion he's under to think he understands the law in any capacity, especially with how flexible some laws can be and how contextual a lot of lawsuits really are.
On one hand, I admire how he can somehow keep this up for literally years. From stabbing his dad, to suing a jail he claimed he was never arrested by when he was, and suing nobody youtubers and the Farms
but on the other, he doesn't have the tenacity or integrity to hit the gym, get a job, or beat a rat in Dark Souls.
I wonder what kind of delusion he's under to think he understands the law in any capacity, especially with how flexible some laws can be and how contextual a lot of lawsuits really are.
it's probably him injecting his "personality" rather than correcting himself.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
Stebbins gamed the copyright office by registering his 10 songs as unpublished works so he didn't have to pay the full filing fee. He then continues to say they're technically unpublished because of circular 66 from the copyright office despite him publishing them over and over in his commentary videos.
I believe in an older video or court filing that this is the reason he puts those songs in his videos, so he can claim copyright against everyone and maximize damages.
His IFP application lists his YouTube income - $47.65 a month on average. Dang man, pulling in those bigtime bucks.
I believe in an older video or court filing that this is the reason he puts those songs in his videos, so he can claim copyright against everyone and maximize damages.
His IFP application lists his YouTube income - $47.65 a month on average. Dang man, pulling in those bigtime bucks.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
I guess the good news is that a lawsuit this fucking insane probably won't get very far at all before being dismissed for the acerthorn special of not stating his case properly. Bad news is of course that you still have to play into his vexatious litigant bullshit or you lose by default. Love it when broke retards abuse the legal system. You can always tell this wereturkey is getting off on it when he sends someone a threatening email, the scuminess just bleeds from the text.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2022
But yet somehow his video's are worth 900K when ever anyone happens to try to Fair Use them.
Funny that.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
$47.65 should be able to pay for a few pizza's if Null doesn't frame that check too when it's time to collect.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
Oh really? Well this is a material misrepresentation before the court. Because these songs were very clearly Published. To YouTube. Even if you don't list the video, the YouTube TOS gives YouTube publisher rights. Which means the turkey goblin not only lied in his copyright application, he also lied in his sworn petition before the 4th Circuit of the United States Judiciary.
By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service.
Nothing in that says "But if you private the videos or don't list them then you aren't granting the license!
This is evidence of malicious intent. I hope Hardin has that baseball bat oiled.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
The dude is literally retarded and on the level of turkeys drowning in the rain because they stare up at it and choke on the incoming rain.
Except that doesn't actually happen in reality. It does happen with Mr. Stabby because he is vastly more retarded than a turkey.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
He is well oiled and in for the long haul and everyone is taking it shitting down.
My goodness I love that the above isn’t anything but combined lines from actual legal filings.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2023
I just finished reading his filing. I am trying, and failing, to not laugh. Thank you, Stabbins. I needed a good laugh at the end of the weekend before returning to the office grind.
Do you think Hardin should petition the court to order that Stabbins be disallowed from being outside when it rains? For his own safety, of course. It would be a sad day if Stabbins couldn't produce any more milk for us because he looked up at a thunderstorm, mouth agape, and drowned.
It's the unnaturalness of his were-turkey condition. Turkeys aren't that stupid, and neither are a good number of retards. However, by combining a retard and a turkey in a way never intended by God, the were-turkey's retardation reaches levels that never should have existed. And we get to laugh at his fat ass for it.
Do you think Hardin should petition the court to order that Stabbins be disallowed from being outside when it rains? For his own safety, of course. It would be a sad day if Stabbins couldn't produce any more milk for us because he looked up at a thunderstorm, mouth agape, and drowned.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
Still a lot. 45. I can understand someone filing like three times but 45 you should probably stop and ask yourself why lol