Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
😵💫 SkitzocowDavid Anthony Stebbins / Acerthorn / stebbinsd / fayettevillesdavid - Litigious autist, obese livestreamer, elder abuser, violent schizo, ladyboy importer, hot dog enjoyer, wereturkey.
I also couldn't help but spot the thumbnail to this video;
So, at first I saw the obese stocking (I think it's stocking) avatar and thought "Ok, this guy is an obvious buddy troll and he has Acerthorn gloating" but then I checked this Dyne person's channel to be met with....
Looks like some brony with next to no subs which covers random junk, so basically the intellectual equivalent of a fucking slug and it got me realising (Yeah, I'm slow most of the time) that all these "Debates" are not only short as fuck, but with tiny ass youtubers who're clearly retarded, autistic or have no ability to present him a real argument. Which stands to reason, I highly doubt Acerthorn would actually debate anyone capable of presenting a counter-argument which might make him sweat. I don't plan to watch the debate because, fuck me I can just imagine some lispy, braindead brony (please tell me I got it in one) talking with an out of breath fat retarded turkey will be enough for my ears to overload and burst to put themselves out of their misery. But I am curious as to what this "Big own" was that the debate was over within 11 minutes..
I can't imagine it's anything coherent or within the realms of logic, anytime I see retarded Christians attempt to debate atheists it's all wishy washy "Vibe" type shit arguments, rather than something substantial or worth giving any weight to. I would actually like to see Acerthorn make a debate with someone who's going to bite and give him something to debate with, instead he'll always pick retards who have a grade school education.
Capable people won't debate Stabbins due to his approach to debates:
1) It must be scripted (both sides exchange questions they plan to ask, and maybe even pre-cite sources they plan to use to argument in favor of);
2) Whatever iteration of non-sensical contracts you have to sign to even get into debate (see this post);
3) You must finish his google form survey for application such as this one before any other contact is made.
So all he'll get are either trolls or literal nobodies with 2-3 digits of followers looking to gain more of those from an interaction with a seemingly active channel that seemingly engages with his audience of seemingly 5 thousand people youtube accounts.
5 Fucking Attachments. Let's see.
ECF 130 as Images and PDFs.
And for extra funny. Here's the phone call he recorded. Since this was posted in the docket I'm archiving it.
12:22
Not for official use.
0:00:01 Stabby: Hello, Mr. Edmondson.
Edmondson: Hey, David. How are you doing?
Stabby: Hi. So let's get this out of the way. And before we begin, I just wanted to let you know I'm going to be recording this call for my legal protection. This is a notice, not a request for permission. All right. All right.
Stabby: So, you said, either it was you or your secretary, somebody on your side said that you were intending to file a motion, not just for an extension of time to respond to the discovery, but a motion for a protective order. So, would you like to explain to me what exactly is the basis for that?
0:00:37 Edmondson: Well, I asked you for an extension of time, and you wouldn't give it to me.
Stabby: Well, yeah, but I mean, a protective order is a much more sweeping thing than just a one-off extension.
Stabby: It's like, a protective order is designed to, like, limit my discovery rights going forward.
Edmondson: Well, it's going forward for the next three weeks.
0:01:11 Stabby: But I mean, what is the basis for you thinking that that just because I don't agree that you need an extension? I mean, I understand you want one, but I disagree that you need one.
Stabby: So what is the basis for the protective order?
Edmondson: Okay.
Stabby: Huh? Can you speak up, please?
Edmondson: Yeah, I'm speaking up.
Edmondson: There's some sort of feedback on your phone.
Stabby: Some sort of... I mean, I'm not... I don't... Okay, am I breaking up to you?
0:01:51 Edmondson: You sound great.
Stabby: Okay, anyway...
Stabby: Like, you say you need this extension because of the upcoming trial and you're swamped in preparing for the Messiah trial, but didn't you- you obviously knew this was coming long before you even signed up to take this case. So, I mean, why are you waiting until the last- until, like, the day before it's due, the responses are due, to ask me for an extension? Shouldn't you already have, like, your discovery responses ready to go and you could just send them to me?
0:02:30 Edmondson: I mean, that seems kind of unprofessional of you on your end.
Stabby: I've got a lot of stuff to say now, but wait and hear me out because I actually do have an offer at the end.
Stabby: I feel like you should have known if you were biting off more than you can chew by taking so many cases that you couldn't actually handle all of them in a timely manner. You were asking me to delay the single most important response to discovery, the initial one, and by an amount that is effectively twice, um... That comes close to doubling the total length of time that you would normally have. Because you normally have a month to reply, and you're asking for three weeks, which is one week less than a month.
0:03:18 Stabby: You're basically asking me to almost double the length of time, and you're asking for this on the eve of when your responses are due... Prior to, and you obviously knew that this trial was going to be coming up over in the Central District, so you could have requested this extension a long time ago and just didn't.
0:03:59 Stabby: So I feel like that there's an old legal phrase that it's Latin, but it translates into English as equity aids the vigilant, not those who sit on their rights. So it's the driving force behind the equity, the defense of latches.
Stabby: But even though latches obviously isn't applicable here, I feel like that driving force, that sentiment still is.
Stabby: Now, add that to the fact that this is perhaps the single most important set of discovery that I'm going to have in this case, because you're asking me to cut into the total discovery time... The time that it would take me... Because you're not suggesting that we back up everything by three weeks. You're just suggesting that I essentially get three weeks less total time of discovery on my end. And I need this initial batch of discovery requests in order to know what sort of follow-up discovery I need to request. Because from that point of view, you can see how the initial discovery responses are the most important. And you're asking me to just give up three weeks of discovery time that I could be spending conducting follow-up discovery just so that you can focus on another case that I have no stake in and don't give a rat's butt about.
0:05:33 Stabby: Frankly, I think you have not shown good reason why you deserve this extension. However, I believe we can help each other out here. We both want something. The whole mark of a good compromise is when both sides feel like they've lost.
Stabby: So here's an offer for you. I would agree to this extension. But in exchange, you agree that every deposition in this case, not just mine, not just your clients, but everyone's, be handled remotely via web call. And yes, and you previously said that you wanted to gauge my body language and stuff in order to try to gauge my credibility as a witness. You can do that as long as you have a webcam. It's not just over the phone anymore.
0:06:17 Stabby: Especially ever since the pandemic, the webcam has become pretty much identical to the in person, in terms of your ability to read my body language and read where my eyes dart and whatnot.
Stabby: So, yes, your only tangible reason for objecting to remote depositions is that...
0:07:05 Stabby: has basically been declared obsolete just a few short years ago.
Stabby: So, my offer is that I would stipulate to this extension if you stipulate to remote depositions unless the person being deposed agrees to an in-person deposition.
Stabby: What do you think of that?
Edmondson: Well, I think I can only speak for my guy. I can't speak for other people. There are plenty of people you want to oppose.
Edmondson: So I don't know. I don't know what they'll say, but I can simply speak for my guy.
0:07:51 Stabby: So what do you say to my offer?
Edmondson: Well, your offer was everybody agreed that everybody could do a remote deposition. I can't speak for the other people, but I can speak for my guy.
Stabby: I mean, if we're deposing a third party, he doesn't get to just say no to a deposition. He doesn't just get to—unless he has to first move to quash the deposition in order to get out of the deposition entirely. So if I decide to take his deposition remotely— the deponent doesn't get to just say no to that. And if he wants to come to Harrison, Arkansas in person just because he insists on being deposed in person, he's free to... Those witnesses are all free to do that.
0:08:26 Stabby: But, of course, I wouldn't be required to pay in that case because that's their choice.
Stabby: But anyway, that's my offer to consenting to this three-week extension.
Edmondson: Well, I can't accept the offer because I can't speak for the other people.
0:09:03 Stabby: No, no, no. The parties decide... The parties can stipulate to remote deposition. Okay, let me rephrase the offer here.
Stabby: Let me rephrase it. We agree to remote depositions... to the extent that the deponents, the witnesses, will likewise submit, likewise either can't either agree to remote depositions or are forced to be deposed remotely, to the extent that their personal preferences are not a barrier that we agree to remote depositions. That is my offer to agree to this three-week extension.
0:09:49 Edmondson: Yeah, yeah. And if you wanted to post it via Zoom, why not?
Stabby: And all the other... So you'll finally agree to the remote depositions. Awesome. Then, yeah. Okay, then.
Stabby: Let's type up that... I can type up the joint stipulation, if you'd like, that I agree to a three-week extension of time to respond to discovery, and the parties also stipulate that all depositions would be conducted remotely unless the deponent wishes to be deposed in person and is willing to pay for the costs thereof. All right, I'll drive to... No, no, no, I mean, look, David, I can't stipulate to a third party doing something because they're not here stipulating what's up. You don't get it.
0:10:39 Edmondson: But between people I can represent, that's it. If you want to oppose Sid via Zoom... To the extent that they're... Okay, then to the extent that that happened, then to the extent that the deponent's objections are not an obstruction to it, the parties agree to remote depositions.
Stabby: Fine, fine. I'll type up the joint stipulation now, and I'll send it to you to approve. Thank you. I think that concludes our business today.
0:11:28 Edmondson: In discovery, all we have to do is agree by email. We don't have to strike up drug stipulations. Because the court doesn't care.
Stabby: Okay, but then I'll send... Just what you said, and I'll say it's cool.
Edmondson: And, you know, we don't have to put anything on file with the court.
Stabby: Okay, then I'll type up the email, okay? Okay, okay. I'll type up the email now. Mr. Edmondson, do you have anything else you need to say to me? I can't think of anything.
0:12:02 Edmondson: Thank you for the exception. Thank you.
Stabby: And thank you for agreeing to remote depositions. Thank you.
I hadn't heard Acerthorn speak before, so this was enlightening, maddening and HILARIOUS!
His delusions of legal competence is apparent; and that he is even allowed to continue this larp is bewildering.
Just because our legal system is an adversarial model, does not mean you get to be an asshole to your opponent.
Not for official use.
0:00:01 Stabby: Hello, Mr. Edmondson.
Edmondson: Hey, David. How are you doing?
Stabby: Hi. So let's get this out of the way. And before we begin, I just wanted to let you know I'm going to be recording this call for my legal protection. This is a notice, not a request for permission. All right. All right.
Stabby: So, you said, either it was you or your secretary, somebody on your side said that you were intending to file a motion, not just for an extension of time to respond to the discovery, but a motion for a protective order. So, would you like to explain to me what exactly is the basis for that?
0:00:37 Edmondson: Well, I asked you for an extension of time, and you wouldn't give it to me.
Stabby: Well, yeah, but I mean, a protective order is a much more sweeping thing than just a one-off extension.
Stabby: It's like, a protective order is designed to, like, limit my discovery rights going forward.
Edmondson: Well, it's going forward for the next three weeks.
0:01:11 Stabby: But I mean, what is the basis for you thinking that that just because I don't agree that you need an extension? I mean, I understand you want one, but I disagree that you need one.
Stabby: So what is the basis for the protective order?
Edmondson: Okay.
Stabby: Huh? Can you speak up, please?
Edmondson: Yeah, I'm speaking up.
Edmondson: There's some sort of feedback on your phone.
Stabby: Some sort of... I mean, I'm not... I don't... Okay, am I breaking up to you?
0:01:51 Edmondson: You sound great.
Stabby: Okay, anyway...
Stabby: Like, you say you need this extension because of the upcoming trial and you're swamped in preparing for the Messiah trial, but didn't you- you obviously knew this was coming long before you even signed up to take this case. So, I mean, why are you waiting until the last- until, like, the day before it's due, the responses are due, to ask me for an extension? Shouldn't you already have, like, your discovery responses ready to go and you could just send them to me?
0:02:30 Edmondson: I mean, that seems kind of unprofessional of you on your end.
Stabby: I've got a lot of stuff to say now, but wait and hear me out because I actually do have an offer at the end.
Stabby: I feel like you should have known if you were biting off more than you can chew by taking so many cases that you couldn't actually handle all of them in a timely manner. You were asking me to delay the single most important response to discovery, the initial one, and by an amount that is effectively twice, um... That comes close to doubling the total length of time that you would normally have. Because you normally have a month to reply, and you're asking for three weeks, which is one week less than a month.
0:03:18 Stabby: You're basically asking me to almost double the length of time, and you're asking for this on the eve of when your responses are due... Prior to, and you obviously knew that this trial was going to be coming up over in the Central District, so you could have requested this extension a long time ago and just didn't.
0:03:59 Stabby: So I feel like that there's an old legal phrase that it's Latin, but it translates into English as equity aids the vigilant, not those who sit on their rights. So it's the driving force behind the equity, the defense of latches.
Stabby: But even though latches obviously isn't applicable here, I feel like that driving force, that sentiment still is.
Stabby: Now, add that to the fact that this is perhaps the single most important set of discovery that I'm going to have in this case, because you're asking me to cut into the total discovery time... The time that it would take me... Because you're not suggesting that we back up everything by three weeks. You're just suggesting that I essentially get three weeks less total time of discovery on my end. And I need this initial batch of discovery requests in order to know what sort of follow-up discovery I need to request. Because from that point of view, you can see how the initial discovery responses are the most important. And you're asking me to just give up three weeks of discovery time that I could be spending conducting follow-up discovery just so that you can focus on another case that I have no stake in and don't give a rat's butt about.
0:05:33 Stabby: Frankly, I think you have not shown good reason why you deserve this extension. However, I believe we can help each other out here. We both want something. The whole mark of a good compromise is when both sides feel like they've lost.
Stabby: So here's an offer for you. I would agree to this extension. But in exchange, you agree that every deposition in this case, not just mine, not just your clients, but everyone's, be handled remotely via web call. And yes, and you previously said that you wanted to gauge my body language and stuff in order to try to gauge my credibility as a witness. You can do that as long as you have a webcam. It's not just over the phone anymore.
0:06:17 Stabby: Especially ever since the pandemic, the webcam has become pretty much identical to the in person, in terms of your ability to read my body language and read where my eyes dart and whatnot.
Stabby: So, yes, your only tangible reason for objecting to remote depositions is that...
0:07:05 Stabby: has basically been declared obsolete just a few short years ago.
Stabby: So, my offer is that I would stipulate to this extension if you stipulate to remote depositions unless the person being deposed agrees to an in-person deposition.
Stabby: What do you think of that?
Edmondson: Well, I think I can only speak for my guy. I can't speak for other people. There are plenty of people you want to oppose.
Edmondson: So I don't know. I don't know what they'll say, but I can simply speak for my guy.
0:07:51 Stabby: So what do you say to my offer?
Edmondson: Well, your offer was everybody agreed that everybody could do a remote deposition. I can't speak for the other people, but I can speak for my guy.
Stabby: I mean, if we're deposing a third party, he doesn't get to just say no to a deposition. He doesn't just get to—unless he has to first move to quash the deposition in order to get out of the deposition entirely. So if I decide to take his deposition remotely— the deponent doesn't get to just say no to that. And if he wants to come to Harrison, Arkansas in person just because he insists on being deposed in person, he's free to... Those witnesses are all free to do that.
0:08:26 Stabby: But, of course, I wouldn't be required to pay in that case because that's their choice.
Stabby: But anyway, that's my offer to consenting to this three-week extension.
Edmondson: Well, I can't accept the offer because I can't speak for the other people.
0:09:03 Stabby: No, no, no. The parties decide... The parties can stipulate to remote deposition. Okay, let me rephrase the offer here.
Stabby: Let me rephrase it. We agree to remote depositions... to the extent that the deponents, the witnesses, will likewise submit, likewise either can't either agree to remote depositions or are forced to be deposed remotely, to the extent that their personal preferences are not a barrier that we agree to remote depositions. That is my offer to agree to this three-week extension.
0:09:49 Edmondson: Yeah, yeah. And if you wanted to post it via Zoom, why not?
Stabby: And all the other... So you'll finally agree to the remote depositions. Awesome. Then, yeah. Okay, then.
Stabby: Let's type up that... I can type up the joint stipulation, if you'd like, that I agree to a three-week extension of time to respond to discovery, and the parties also stipulate that all depositions would be conducted remotely unless the deponent wishes to be deposed in person and is willing to pay for the costs thereof. All right, I'll drive to... No, no, no, I mean, look, David, I can't stipulate to a third party doing something because they're not here stipulating what's up. You don't get it.
0:10:39 Edmondson: But between people I can represent, that's it. If you want to oppose Sid via Zoom... To the extent that they're... Okay, then to the extent that that happened, then to the extent that the deponent's objections are not an obstruction to it, the parties agree to remote depositions.
Stabby: Fine, fine. I'll type up the joint stipulation now, and I'll send it to you to approve. Thank you. I think that concludes our business today.
0:11:28 Edmondson: In discovery, all we have to do is agree by email. We don't have to strike up drug stipulations. Because the court doesn't care.
Stabby: Okay, but then I'll send... Just what you said, and I'll say it's cool.
Edmondson: And, you know, we don't have to put anything on file with the court.
Stabby: Okay, then I'll type up the email, okay? Okay, okay. I'll type up the email now. Mr. Edmondson, do you have anything else you need to say to me? I can't think of anything.
0:12:02 Edmondson: Thank you for the exception. Thank you.
Stabby: And thank you for agreeing to remote depositions. Thank you.
fucking hell why does redfields lawyer keep giving stabby all these easy wins? why the FUCK would you agree to let him remotely depose anyone? you know in person depositions are an instant loss condition for stabby, it would require him to spend significant money and leave his mold hovel. he would end up sperging at the court, arguing with the judge for a couple months, and then abandoning the case most likely.
this isnt the last rake stabby could step on and smack himself in the face, but it was a big hefty one. i think curt fucked up here, this is gonna be costly for redfield.
I hate the way this odious little faggot types his filings up like a meandering blog post.
Making an unemotional, factual argument with sound legal backing and citations is too much for ol' Stabby. He has to debase people's professions as unimportant when this nigga can barely hold a Script Regurgitator job down at a supermarket.
"If you won't provide me with a cheap wage slave, just give me an inmate for free!"
Then he starts whining about the cost of in-person depositions as if that has any relevance after he just said the Defence has consented to conducting them remotely.
Straight up accusing the lawyer of lying because he assumes he can somehow monitor his every move online is actual lunatic behaviour.
I hope everybody who has the misfortune of ever having to interact with this unfathomably rude, self-absorbed little piece of shit is rewarded somehow.
Edmondson should have just asked the court for an extension himself. Let Stebbins object, what's he going to do, sperg about it while shitting himself on the docket and pissing the judges off even more? You asked him like a professional does, but you aren't dealing with a professional. David Stebbins is vexatious, so put it in front of the court.
Besides, he was making retarded threats to appeal the case and causing delays himself. He was demanding a new schedule from the court to accommodate the delays that he himself was causing. So how is the court going to look at Stebbins opposing an extension as anything but his being a giant piece of shit?
fucking hell why does redfields lawyer keep giving stabby all these easy wins? why the FUCK would you agree to let him remotely depose anyone? you know in person depositions are an instant loss condition for stabby, it would require him to spend significant money and leave his mold hovel. he would end up sperging at the court, arguing with the judge for a couple months, and then abandoning the case most likely.
I'm kind of MATI about this right now, because I think it's a result of the lawyer not paying attention to the case. If he read Stabby's latest exchanges with the judge over the issue, he would know it's a "do nothing and win" situation for him. Throwing that away because he didn't juggle his personal caseload correctly is terrible.
fucking hell why does redfields lawyer keep giving stabby all these easy wins? why the FUCK would you agree to let him remotely depose anyone? you know in person depositions are an instant loss condition for stabby, it would require him to spend significant money and leave his mold hovel. he would end up sperging at the court, arguing with the judge for a couple months, and then abandoning the case most likely.
