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
HOLY SHIT. Look at this comment on Acerthorns Wind Waker video mentioned a couple pages back.
comment.png

This is almost exactly the same as what he said he wanted to do this his father in 2007.
stebbinsvUA_179.6.png
he would cut his father's forehead and take his blood to write a letter of forgiveness.
Click to expand...
He's literally fantasizing about committing the crime he was accused of. He's been getting off to the same sick torture fantasy for at least 12 years. This is psychotic.

Timeline
2007/12/03 Tells university his plans to attack father with a knife.
2011/11/24(Thanksgiving) Accused of attacking father with a knife
2013/03/08 Enters negotiated guilty plea to 3rd degree domestic battery
1 year of probation
2014/05/12 Order to seal
2019 Publicly fantasizes about slicing people's faces.

Legal kiwis. The order to seal was granted 2 months after his probation ended. The law says he has to wait 5 years before petitioning for sealing. Is he at risk of having the seal retracted, making him refile?
seal.png
16-90-904.png
There's the old 2013 (16-90-904) and 2014 (16-90-1405) versions of the law in the attached pdf. Both have a 5 year wait.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Wright, koos koets, Zizara and 15 others
Useful_Mistake said:
Acerthorn responds
View attachment 6134793
Click to expand...
Dear Judge,

The retarded thing I did that made the retard say something retarded was not as retarded as this retard is saying it is. His retarded thing made me temporarily retarded whereupon I may have said a retarded thing that he may have retardedly construed as retarded. Thus I retardedly as this retarded court to retardedly award me a billion dollar stipend to be paid bi-weekly until time stops.

Fuck you very much,

A retard
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Horpach, Wright, koos koets and 18 others
TurboNAS said:
Huh, so Stebbins threatened ZellZander with a sanctions motion unless he withdrew or otherwise altered his response pleading. That sure sounds like a sanctionable intimidation tactic. Especially because he sent this in an email as a threat rather than making the motion through the Court’s docket.

Maybe the docket is going to fill up with the two of them slinging sanctions back and forth. Isn’t pro se litigation fun?
Click to expand...
You're not allowed to file a sanctions motion under Rule 11 unless you first give the opposing party an opportunity to retract or modify the allegedly sanctionable filing. It's called a Rule 11 letter and is obligatory.

So he's still a retard and doesn't have a leg to stand on, but if he intends to file such a motion, he's at least doing the formalities.

(My personal opinion is such a sanctions motion would itself be sanctionably frivolous.)
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: dead76, Vecr, Broken Cuddles and 5 others
Stebbins said:
I acknowledge that the Defendant avers that he used the download feature of
YouTube Premium to lawfully obtain his copy of the stream before I proceed to demolish that
claim with overwhelming evidence.
Click to expand...

ZELLZANDER DESTROYED WITH OVERWHELMING FAX AND LOGIX!! Karen farms btfo! Stebbins wins statutory and punitive damages in the amount of the entire material wealth of the asteroid belt in perpetuity forevermore.
 
DSP's Tax Lawyer said:
View attachment 6136127

David didn't agree to the terms I had for the take down but took down my video anyways. Time to sue him for 3 billion dollars for what he did to my thriving youtube channel
Click to expand...
You can't use his videos but he's happy to use other peoples Youtube Shorts.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Not a bee, Mankirk, Broken Cuddles and 1 other person
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets, Not a bee, DSP's Tax Lawyer and 5 others
More copyright claims vs YouTub and Creetosis

Hmmm, as far as I can tell Stabby thinks he found a loop hole in

"The fact that a work has been placed online or posted on a website does not
necessarily mean that the work has been published.
When copies of it are distributed to the public by sale or other transfer
of ownership if the copyright owner authorizes the end user to retain copies of the
work. Merely displaying or pe1forming a work online generally does not
constitute publication . ... Just because an end user can technically reproduce a
work does not necessarily mean that the work has been published. A copyright
owner must have expressly or implicitly authorized users to make retainable
copies of a work by downloading, printing, or other means for the work to be
considered published.
The concepts of authorization and publication can be complicated and may have
serious consequences for the author or copyright owner. For this reason, the
Office generally lets the applicant decide whether a particular work is published
or unpublished. In making this determination, you may wish to consider the
following general guidelines.
• Work made available only by streaming. Streaming is a performance, which, in
and of itself, does not constitute publication, because, as a practical matter, the
end user does not retain a copy of the work when the performance ends.
• Work for which downloading or reproduction is expressly prohibited. If there is
a notice on a website in the terms of service for the site or another obvious
place indicating that a work or the content on the site cannot be downloaded,
printed, or copied, the work or content may be deemed unpublished, because the
end user is not authorized to download, print, or otherwise distribute copies.
• Work made available through an implied license. It may be unclear whether the
copyright owner authorized the public to retain copies of the work if a work is
posted on a website and there is no evident statement in the terms of service for
the site-on the web page where the work is displayed or elsewhere-stating that
the work can be downloaded, copied, forwarded, shared, or printed.


Which means Stabby thinks because he's now calling his streams performances and not a work of art YouTube's downloader program is violating his copyright as performances are different then a piece of art so anyone downloading it, even if it's to create more art under fair use, is thus breaking his copyright due to this new gobbledygook he thinks he's found.


Once again Stabby thinks he's found a new super secret law he can use to get rich.

I would point out the two glaring flaws in his logic but since we know Stabby reads this thread (Hi David you fat useless piece if human gragbage) but I wont so Stabby can have a other loss. I'm sure if you read his case the flaws jump jump right out at you.

I'm betting the judge tosses this one using Stabbys vexatious orders as an excuse.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: koos koets, anliteralidiot, Last Ride and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back