David Stebbins v. Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC. Case: 2:24-CV-00140, Southern District of West Virginia. - Acerthorn sues the Farms

[Irene and 22 others]

Is there any reason for the odd hyphenation here? Did he copy this from another document where the word processor automatically did it while breaking it across multiple lines?



He also does such a good job of telling on himself.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Is there any reason for the odd hyphenation here? Did he copy this from another document where the word processor automatically did it while breaking it across multiple lines?

Wyświetl załącznik 9018525He also does such a good job of telling on himself.Wyświetl załącznik 9018535

I doubt there's any particular reason. If the sourced document was scanned in from a paper original it was likely just a misread by the OCR software and Stabby couldn't be arsed to proofread his copy/paste work.

And yes, it's always a giggler how he manages to out himself as a vexatious litigant while complaining that he's unfairly being tagged as a vexatious litigant.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

If I am right about this that means Stabby can file for IFP in the appeals court without filing in the district court. THIS RULE IS EXTREMELY CONFUSING. THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE AN EXCEPTION BUT IT ISN'T MENTIONED EXCEPT AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND THE EARLIER LANGUAGE MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THERE ISN'T ONE. If I am right or wrong it doesn't matter this is just a poorly written rule.

Incorrect. The rule uses the phrase "affidavit" and "motion" for two different things. Rule 24 (a) (1) states that a party which wants ifp on appeal must "file a motion in the district court."

The "exception" Acer relies on is for when you filed your motion on the district level incorrectly and forgot to attach the required affidavit. That paragraph does not create an exception, merely explains the time and procedure to file your ifp after your motion on the district level got denied, or an appeal was certified as frivolous.

Additionally, irrespective of what he now says, he admited his intent to break the rule, and therefore it should be presumed that his argument is dishonest

 

[Napoleon III]

The "exception" Acer relies on is for when you filed your motion on the district level incorrectly and forgot to attach the required affidavit. That paragraph does not create an exception, merely explains the time and procedure to file your ifp after your motion on the district level got denied, or an appeal was certified as frivolous.

I mean I hope you are right. But the rule doesn't make sense otherwise. FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) has been met because he was denied IFP. It says a party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis IN THE COURT OF APPEALS within 30 days. Why would this rule exist at all if what you are saying is true. It would be entirely and completely unnecessary because obviously you can do this. If it was as you said all they could change it to say "prescribed in Rule 24(a)(4)(A)". But they don't they say Rule 24(a)(4) which means it should apply to all of them.



Furthermore FRAP 24(a)(5) deals with exceptions to when you would need to file in a district court. If you look at FRAP 24(b) you'll see instances of when there are federal legal proceedings that don't go through a district court. Obviously it doesn't make sense to file for IFP in a district court if you are just filing an appeal and you never interact with district court. So they carve out an exception. The end bits of FRAP 24 deal with weird exceptions.

All of this makes me think that Stabby is allowed to file an IFP and file for IFP in appeal court. Again I'd prefer it if he was wrong because seeing him be smacked around is funny. But sadly I think he is right.

Incorrect. The rule uses the phrase "affidavit" and "motion" for two different things. Rule 24 (a) (1) states that a party which wants ifp on appeal must "file a motion in the district court."

I will say that whomever of the two of us is correct the rule is written very unclearly.

Additionally, irrespective of what he now says, he admited his intent to break the rule, and therefore it should be presumed that his argument is dishonest

I hope so, or at least I hope the appellate court finds him not worthy of IFP.

 

[Adr1anD]

Is there any reason for the odd hyphenation here? Did he copy this from another document where the word processor automatically did it while breaking it across multiple lines?

I believe it's because he types his stuff in a bigger size, and then have to ctrl+a -> reduce size to the court standard.
So in his document having a hyphen there would've made sense.

 

[Apteryx Owenii]

I wish I had the confidence in life to believe that "every judge in the country" somehow knew of me and had such unwarranted hatred of me that they will make obviously biased rulings- instead of considering that I might not know what the fuck I'm doing.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

Do not confuse confidence for arrogance.

 

[Sweeter and Savoury]

I wish I had the confidence in life to believe that "every judge in the country" somehow knew of me and had such unwarranted hatred of me that they will make obviously biased rulings- instead of considering that I might not know what the fuck I'm doing.

David is a diagnosed paranoid type. Which type I don't remember so people who only follow the legal stuff can misunderstand him.

He's a grandiose egotist who thinks the world powers are out to stop him because he's just so damn smart that he will destroy their world order and replace it with his genius plan...from his crack shack in no-wheresville, while perennially unemployed and uneducated.

So this order is par for the course. The whole judicial system in the US is aware of Mr Stebbins and has been instructed to frustrate all his attempts to extract justice from his many, many, MANY enemies just because the TPTB are so scared of him.

In reality all David is doing is re-enforcing the vexatious claims Hardin is making by showing off exactly what kind of litigant he really is. Making autistic level demands of judges to list out each and every thought they have when making a ruling, just do David can appeal each one of them, and generally being the all around super assburger we all know and love.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) has been met because he was denied IFP.

Incorrect. The district court has made no finding (on its own or otherwise) regarding Stebbins' ability to proceed with IFP in the appellate court. A motion for leave to appeal with ifp is a seperate thing from an ordinary motion for ifp, unless the ordinary motion for ifp was already granted.

Why would this rule exist at all if what you are saying is true.

When a district court denies you motion for leave to proceed with the appeal ifp, the appellate rule provides you with an opportunity to ask the appellate court for the same, which they will consider with due deference to the district court.

I will say that whomever of the two of us is correct the rule is written very unclearly.

I don't find it confusing at all. You ordinarily are not supposed to read rules in a way that causes conflict within the same rule. Nor are, generally, exceptions hidden in a throwaway catchall term. Supreme Court has always been loudly against that, and given that they wrote these rules, I think it's safe to say they didn't try the action they protest against.

I hope the appellate court finds him not worthy of IFP.

Given they (or, well, the clerk did) decided to punt the motion to remand (and unless they rule on the motion to reconsider before determining merits), they will probably grant the ifp and dismiss the appeal.

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

It says a party may file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis IN THE COURT OF APPEALS within 30 days. Why would this rule exist at all if what you are saying is true. It would be entirely and completely unnecessary because obviously you can do thisin the district court

Read carefully. The rules set up two streams:

1. Rule 24(a). If you are a party to a district-court action, you must file a motion in the district court or have had prior approval in the district. If you had to file a motion then the court may deny it, or in either case it may certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith or that you are not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis for another reason.

The district court must send you a notice of the denial, and then you may file a motion in the Court of Appeals within 30 days. If you filed a motion, you had to attach an affidavit and this is part of the record on appeal already. If you had prior approval and therefore didn't file a motion in the district court, you wouldn't have filed an affidavit and must do so now.

2. Rule 24(b). If you are not a party to a district-court action, but are rather appealing from the Tax Court or a proceeding before an administrative agency, board, commission, or officer, then you may file a motion in the Court of Appeals and attach the affidavit.

The rule is structured like this because the first stream is the much more common one.

In this case, Stebbins did not file a motion in the district court to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and did not have prior authorization either.

 

[Billy Beeple]

FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) has been met because he was denied IFP.

No, the district court has not "denie[d] a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis" (emphasis added). Stabby has not filed such a motion, he filed for IFP for proceedings in the district court, prior to filing his appeal.

 

[WarJams]

If I am right about this that means Stabby can file for IFP in the appeals court without filing in the district court. THIS RULE IS EXTREMELY CONFUSING. THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE AN EXCEPTION BUT IT ISN'T MENTIONED EXCEPT AT THE VERY BOTTOM AND THE EARLIER LANGUAGE MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THERE ISN'T ONE. If I am right or wrong it doesn't matter this is just a poorly written rule.

I think you are just reading this wrong, you should have just quit reading at the end of 24(a)(3), because that is the only ways it permits to get around the process described in 24(a)(1), which tells you that he must file an affidavit of proof of what a poor faggot he is if he wants the appeal to be IFP.

24(a)(4) doesn't get Stabbins out of having to file an affidavit with a motion before the district court to appeal. It is rules governing what the district court's clerk needs to file with the appeals court if there is a denial of the IFP request on the appeal (not the IFP of the preceding whole rest of the case). The district judge has not issued any ruling on the matter, and Stebbins is admittedly trying to end run him (because he alleges any ruling will be a denial anyway, and that the district court clerk will have to tell the appeals court why it was denied according to this very rule).

24(a)(5) is, likewise, something that must happen after 24(a)(4). If the district court says that you aren't allowed to appeal in forma poorfaggot, after you have already filed a notice that you are going to appeal with the required affidavit, and then the district judge has denied it, then you may ask the appeals court within 30 days of the appeals court getting notice of the district court's denials, as described in 24(a)(4). As no notice of denial of IFP status on this appeal was ever issued, it has no role here at this time.


I think there's still room for the district judge to choose to do a funny and rule that the appeal was not taken in good faith, which -as per rule 24(a)(3)- he can absolutely do after the appeal motion was made. It probably wouldn't matter as for what the appeals court ultimately does, but just because the fatherstabber already ran to cry to the appeals court doesn't mean the district court has to ignore what he's done here.

 

[Napoleon III]

This is the last post I'll make on this because it feels like we are going in circles. The appellate court will rule on this and provide clarity and given that this not a question of a protected class getting their fee-fees hurt we can probably trust it will be correct.

Incorrect. The district court has made no finding (on its own or otherwise) regarding Stebbins' ability to proceed with IFP in the appellate court. A motion for leave to appeal with ifp is a seperate thing from an ordinary motion for ifp, unless the ordinary motion for ifp was already granted.

The district court must send you a notice of the denial, and then you may file a motion in the Court of Appeals within 30 days. If you filed a motion, you had to attach an affidavit and this is part of the record on appeal already. If you had prior approval and therefore didn't file a motion in the district court, you wouldn't have filed an affidavit and must do so now.

Ok why does FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) even need to exist then? If it isn't saying that this applies anytime in forma pauperis is denied you can do this and this only applies to an appeal that over a denied IFP why does C need to exist? A already covers that scenario. So either there is another scenario that is possible or C is entirely redundant.

I don't find it confusing at all. You ordinarily are not supposed to read rules in a way that causes conflict within the same rule.

Statutes should be very clear and not have these kinds of overlapping weird exceptions implied or otherwise. This stuff could or will apply to everything single case in district court basically. It's worth the time and effort to sit and make sure that there is clarity and logic. In fact you can judge a legal system by how well it does this. Frankly I'd say the US code of law sucks, which considering the state of everything else is not surprising.

Nor are, generally, exceptions hidden in a throwaway catchall term.

No they shouldn't be or at least they should be referenced beforehand if you use a term like must.

around the process described in 24(a)(1), which tells you that he must file an affidavit of proof of what a poor faggot he is if he wants the appeal to be IFP.

Yes it does say that. But this is countermanded by below.

24(a)(5) is, likewise, something that must happen after 24(a)(4). If the district court says that you aren't allowed to appeal in forma poorfaggot, after you have already filed a notice that you are going to appeal with the required affidavit, and then the district judge has denied it, then you may ask the appeals court within 30 days of the appeals court getting notice of the district court's denials, as described in 24(a)(4). As no notice of denial of IFP status on this appeal was ever issued, it has no role here at this time.

So it says Stabby must file an affidavit with the District court in order to file IFP and then later here it says 24(a)(5) that there is a possible situation where you wouldn't have filed one. So must is the wrong term without using something like an unless term as well.


This is what I mean when I say its written poorly no matter which side of this argument is right. If this were code I'd be ashamed of writing it. And before you give me "this is law not programming" both are supposed to be subject to rules of logic.

Given they (or, well, the clerk did) decided to punt the motion to remand (and unless they rule on the motion to reconsider before determining merits), they will probably grant the ifp and dismiss the appeal.

If this happens by which I mean Appellate court granting the appeal IFP but denying the overall case IFP that would mean I was right unless the Appellate court says something like "we grant this IFP application even though we shouldn't because it is improper in order to save time, money and effort."

 

[Old English Roast Beef]

Ok why does FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) even need to exist then? If it isn't saying that this applies anytime in forma pauperis is denied you can do this and this only applies to an appeal that over a denied IFP why does C need to exist? A already covers that scenario.

If you have not filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (like the rules contemplate when you have prior authorization), then the court cannot deny your motion. The court can certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith, but that might not be the case. (24)(a)(4)(C) clarifies that the district court can tell the court of appeals that the appellant should not proceed in forma pauperis for some other reason, too.

Let's think of an example. What if you had prior authorization to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is taken in good faith, but there is new information that suggests you are now able to pay? The use of (A) or (B) would not be appropriate, but (C) would fit.

 

[Random Troll]

I think it's lovely we're discussing this, but in the end some bow-tied-up faggot will read what he wants to read.

 

[Bill Evans 45]

The law, by its very nature will be never reach a final, definitive form because it is a thing invented by humans who are forever changing and creating new things or situations which requite legislation. We're a creature built to look for wiggle room or loop holes which then lead to new precedent. It's also incredibly slow at responding to change.
Some of it is open to subjective judgement, two judges might reach two different conclusions on reviewing the same case, as might two juries.
It's ever evolving, like language. Applying logic to human endeavour will never work because a significant part of the populace are the least logical beings in creation.

 

[Lapsus of the bepsus]

@Gobermental Supervisor posted a new filing to the stabby general thread. hardin replied to stabbys opposition with a true and honest banger

Wyświetl załącznik 9023436

Stebbins got felted again.

pdf link for convenience: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.182565/gov.uscourts.ca4.182565.18.0.pdf

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

@Gobermental Supervisor posted a new filing to the stabby general thread. hardin replied to stabbys opposition with a true and honest banger


pdf link for convenience: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.182565/gov.uscourts.ca4.182565.18.0.pdf

I attached the file to my post, just attach the document. Local archive is always better.

And thanks for the tag, now I can watch this thread and post in the correct one in the future.

 

[Sneed Force One]

They're not even safe from David's kitchen utensils.

 

[Harvey Danger]

This Court will not tread any new ground if it denies Mr. Stebbins in forma pauperis status on the basis of his voluminous litigation history.

Wicked burn.

Of course, Acerthorn will immediately demand an exact flowchart of how he can avoid being denied IFP for his "meritous claims". Anything less than a judge laying out a path for his victory, and swearing that no court in the land will deviate from it, is effectively denying him his Constitutional rights!