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

[Dollar Store Sentai]

Considering Sid is in Jail for 6 months due to a DUI, it will be very difficult for him to respond to anything.

Stabby believes the Sidney Redfield that Spokeo people search found in Idaho is the same person as SidAlpha.

He found a tradmark in Idaho that lapsed in 2018 for SidAlpha registered to Sidney Redfield

 

[CabbageTheSnackThatSlaps]

Why Idaho? isn't he car-less?

Supposedly from emails I've seen, he does have a car. I don't think I'm at liberty to share these emails.

 

[WarJams]

Let the gobbling commence. They're coming for his hot dog money.

View attachment 7467033

​

 

[MongolianMongoose]

Why Idaho? isn't he car-less?

Supposedly from emails I've seen, he does have a car. I don't think I'm at liberty to share these emails.

He said on Reddit he has a 2002 PT Cruiser.
/r/askcarguys/
/r/MechanicAdvice
He deleted the posts but they originally said

I just tried to put some coolant in my car. As soon as I unscrewed the top, I dropped it inside the front of the car. I tried backing up the car just slightly in the hopes that I would uncover the cap, but it didn't work, so the cap must be stuck inside the pipes.
Temporarily, can I get by just by putting duct tape on it? At least until either (A) I can get a replacement cap in the mail, or (B) it falls out, whichever occurs first?
If not, then what do you guys recommend I use as an interim fix?
EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm driving a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser

 

[DavidS877]

In Stabby v Doe/Ceetosis he's asking for a stay pending the approval of his interlocutory appeal in Stabby v Alphabet(also Creetosis) where they smacked him down today earlier.
Stabby v Doe/Creetosis 26

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70393277/26/stebbins-v-doe/

Pweeze, let me appeal....
Stabby v Alphabet 85

Spoiler: 3 pages

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62635218/85/stebbins-v-alphabet-inc/

Court then says, "Um, Stabby, we need to schedule a hearing on the proper date." (I think)

So, Stabby does that.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62635218/87/stebbins-v-alphabet-inc/

And now you know.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

welp that was a slog to read, Stabby's usual high standards seems to be missing here.

Basicly Stabby's still beating the dead horse that just because ALL of his content was used, every last single second of it, to quote the greasy lard-bucket nothing can justify fair use. It's a "complete market replacement" of his content and nothing else can sway that opinion dammit!

"it's plain to see that Creetosis's video serves as a 100% copy of my work and thus must be assessed as a full market replacement and so simply cannot be in any way found as Fair Use"

It's the same shit as always. I guess getting smacked down on every other Fair Use test Stabby is now insisting that because someone who watches Creetosis's video gets the fully Stabby experience nothing the judge said in his fair use tests was correct. Once again Stabby knows the laws better then any mere judge or magistrate of course.

Even though the Owl Fucker and friends spent like 6 hours talking over Stabby's little 20 min video (seriously do these people not have lives?) it doesn't count as fair use...like anyone would spend 6 hours listening to these furfags yap about the dumbest shit just so they can free ride their way to that sweet sweet high quality David Stebbins khantent for free.

TLDR: David big mad, judge hates him and is way wrong as anyone with a brain can clearly see that.

Yah our man's a full autistic alright, nothing can get him to change is mind about anything. He's right and we're all wrong and that's that.

 

[DavidS877]

View attachment 7718287​

I'm pretty sure he's denied electronic filing in this case so as it's after 5PM California time there does not appear to be an entry on the docket for the response. I guess since they go by postmarks then he may still have a couple days for it to arrive.

 

[MongolianMongoose]

Checked in on his activity on the legal help website Avvo.
51) 2025/03/02 When does the 90 day time limit to file a petition with SCOTUS begin?
52) 2025/04/28 Where in the federal statute does it say that on-call time is compensable?
53) 2025/06/12 What's the branch of equity called where a court changes the terms of a contract?
54) 2025/07/16 Which state has jurisdiction in an interstate clandestine phone recording case?
55) 2025/07/22 Can the subpoena power under 17 USC § 512(h) be used to find the identity of a false claimer under § 512(f)?

This is a follow up to the list of 50 other questions he asked there

Surprise! Avvo, the anonymous legal help website, isn't anonymous. Literally. I don't know why I thought it was. It's actually very easy to find all of Acerthorn's post if you know where to look.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

those are some...pretty interesting questions he's asking.

Is Stabby worried about something?

 

[DavidS877]

I'm pretty sure he's denied electronic filing in this case so as it's after 5PM California time there does not appear to be an entry on the docket for the response. I guess since they go by postmarks then he may still have a couple days for it to arrive.

I may be wrong on this. In Utah, where the Greee case is happening the court explicitly states in their Local Rules that when a document arrives is when it arrives, so there's no "Postmark" exception. I can't find information either way for C.D. California. Many Googles turn up the "Mailbox Rule" but that appears to be for the IRS.

In any case, no filing showing up in PACER this morning yet.

 

[Seria]

The ink wasn’t theirs to spill… yet it bleeds across the record.
Deadlines don’t erase fingerprints, and some things can’t stay buried under a PDF.
When the gavel falls, everyone will hear it.

something wonderful is coming! Mark my words!

 

[DavidS877]

something wonderful is coming! Mark my words!

Well, you are right.

Stebbins v Cmdr ImperialSalt have come to an agreement that terminates the case. Stebbins alleges that this moots the sanction.

Spoiler: Full Images

So, does this moot the sanctions.
In the case cited it was a show cause as to why the parties should not both be held in contempt.
This time it's Rule 11. And these statements appear back in ECF 112.

I am of the opinion that this does not "un-ring" the false motion that was submitted. He submitted a false statement, it doesn't go away because the case is over if by court order or mutual agreement of the parties. And this sanction was NOT requested by the defendant but by the court.
Now, I'm sure some legal Kiwi will be along shortly to tell me why I'm wrong. Obviously the court may just say "Fuck this, it's over." and not bother with it. But I'm hopeful they'll simply go "No valid cause was shown, the court hereby implements a $1500 sanction."

 

[Harvey Danger]

Well, you are right.
View attachment 7724374
Stebbins v Cmdr ImperialSalt have come to an agreement that terminates the case. Stebbins alleges that this moots the sanction.
View attachment 7724367

I'm kind of pissed Stebbins appeared to have got every penny out of Cmdr. I understand not wanting to deal with Stabby any more, but if he had the remainder in a lump sum like this, the problem part was over. He could've just kept dripping payments and let Stabby twist in the wind until the sanction came through.

You're supposed to get a discount for early payment, not pay off the balance for no gain. Bad negotiating skills biting him again.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

welp here's to fingers crossed that David being such an asshole to the court makes the judge push the sanctions to the end and not just toss everything.

For my opinion I'd agree with you that just because Zell paid up doesn't erase the fact David outright lied to the court to try to get them to punish Zell.

 

[DavidS877]

In my 3.25 seconds of reading it appears that since the Order To Show Cause was issued before the dismissal it is very likely the sanctions are still in play if the court chooses to do so.


Also the cited case for a 41 a 1 dismissal was for the plaintiff dismissing the case BEFORE the defendant had done anything. This case is obviously long past that.

 

[eastlymefellow]

Deeply disappointed that Acerthorn got his money. Somewhat comforted that it will make no impact on his life. He's a misery golem and $1000 isn't going to change that any more than $10,000 or $100,000 would. He gets to eat some more hotdogs and . . what exactly? Fix his 2002 PT Cruiser? Zell at least has learned an (expensive) lesson not to be a retard on the Internet and to listen to the good advice of the Farms.

I really do hope that Acerthorn still gets hit with sanctions. Logically, it just seems like he should. He lied to the court and was punished for his lying. The outcome is irrelevant. My terrible Google AI search seems to agree, but who knows?

 

[CabbageTheSnackThatSlaps]

Stebbins v Cmdr ImperialSalt have come to an agreement that terminates the case. Stebbins alleges that this moots the sanction.

False.

That signature from ZellZander is a forgery.
Edit: It's lifted from the previous document that Zellzander filed, dkt 132

 

[WarJams]

Stebbins has defied the judge's order to show cause. He can try to run away, but the bell doesn't dismiss you, the judge does.

The injury is to the court, trying to snake away with the case doesn't change that. If the judge just lets this slide after giving this father-stabber extension after extension, and humoring all of his fraudulent appeals after his attempts to perpetrate a fraud upon the court, he is a bigger retard than Zell. It's so retarded there's honestly a part of me that wonders if the "exhibits" are fabricated.

And lets not mince words about what a retard Zell is. What a stupid idiot, all he had to do was nothing! Did he really just get done crying about missing payment deadlines cause he would probably be out of work, only to scramble to get $900 in a month. It just don't make no fucking sense.

I called that he was obviously going to try to swindle and piss away as much money out of him as possible before being sanctioned, because he thinks that will make him sanctions proof. But if the judge puts the screws to him still despite this farcical retreat from accountability, couldn't any outstanding judicial debt stuck to him not just be turned against him as a weapon in every vexatious case going forward?

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

meh Stabby was always going to get his money once Zell signed on the dotted line.

The question we want answered is does Stabby get to keep that money or will the court claw it back with interest for Stabby trying to pull a fast one over $15.

 

[WarJams]

That signature from ZellZander is a forgery.

Seems like the kind of thing that should be told to a judge, if true.