Deucerthorn

David Anthony “Acerthorn” Stebbins will sue you if you say that he was convicted of domestic violence. Why is that? And why would you even say it? Read on…

The Toxic Revenger

Underlying the toxic nuisance that we all know and love, is a tragic case. David Stebbins is, in the end, a dysfunctional person. Sure, he has the impulse control of a sugar-addled toddler half an hour past nap time, and a sense of entitlement that would leave Elon Musk nodding in appreciation, but he claims to have Asperger’s, and, if this is true, he is clearly not high functioning: he has been consistently unable to hold down even entry-level jobs, and his life is plagued by outbursts of incoherent anger.

Anything that frustrates him, that gets in the way of the world being exactly as he wishes it to be,

But has this ever had criminal consequences, I hear you ask? The answer is: probably, but he will absolutely sue you for saying so.

Stebbins v. Stabbins

Stebbins has sued many, many people for not putting up with his uncontrolled anger, including The University of Arkansas, Mid-States Promotions, Reliable Heat and Air and Wal-Mart. But before the firehose of frivolous litigation, there was a criminal case.

One of the causes of action against Redfield is defamation, allegedly for saying that he was convicted by a jury of domestic battery, though this can’t be validated without the original video or a transcript, neither of which is currently available online.

The assault on David D. Stebbins is unambiguous from the record, but the legal outcome is somewhat obscure. For starters, there’s a protection order which his father David D. Stebbins applied for in case DR2012-497 in Boone County, Arkansas, in which Stebbins père asserts that Stebbins fils attacked him with a kitchen knife. There is no dispute as to the existence of this claim, or the fact that the stab wound was suffered. It is also extremely hard to dispute the grounds on which the restraining order was requested. As the application says:

I am concerned that he might attack me or his mother because he is not capable of realizeing (sic.) that he is responsible for his own actions and blames everyone else; and that once convicted, will seek revenge for all his problems that he says I’m the root of.

Wait. Once convicted? Let’s come back to that in a minute.

The restraining order was upheld, and, to a civil burden of proof, the judge concluded: “the Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed domestic abuse against the Petitioner by assaulting him with a knife”.

Stebbins Jr. asserts in his turn that his father stabbed himself, to get Stebbins in trouble, and initiated a civil case David A. Stebbins v. David D. Stebbins (05CV-12-85) in which a counterclaim of domestic battery was made by David A. against David D. The jury sided with David D.

Where’s the beef?

So: there is an extensive crumb trail in the public record showing that Stebbins assaulted his father with a knife on 24 November 2011, was held in jail for some time, and that a jury looked at Stebbins’ version of these events (which held that his father was the aggressor) and rejected it. Which still doesn’t answer the question: did that have any criminal consequences?

We know from the litigation history of Stebbins v. Hotel Seville that our man was arrested on the evening of November 24, 2011 “for a crime that I can prove I did not commit”, and that on December 16, 2011, his bail was reduced to $10,000, but that he failed to secure accommodation (not being welcome at the parental home) so was incarcerated until probably some time in March 2012. To be held for that long for a “crime”, as he himself admits, does suggest that there was a criminal case. But it’s not on the public record.

Enter the man who has done more than anything else to doom Stebbins’ litigation and bring it to wide public mockery. I refer, of course, to David A. Stebbins, who sued Boone County and the arresting officer. It’s almost as if he is not capable of realizing that he is responsible for his own actions and blames everyone else. Being a Stebbins pro-se lawsuit, runs to 188 docket entries over more than four and a half years, and on May 20, 2014, over two years in, Stebbins filed document #160, which included – drum roll – the record of both conviction and expungement.

And thus the truth becomes apparent:

1. On March 6, 2013, David A. Stebbins was sentenced to a year of probation based on a negotiated plea of guilty to domestic battery in the third degree against David D. Stebbins on 24 November, 2011.
2. There is an order to seal the criminal case signed on 24 May 2014, in line with Arkansas Code § 16-90-902, which was applied for by Stebbins and which had the effect of removing the docket and its appeal from the public record.
3. The suppressed guilty finding is a matter of public record because of his own actions in suing the arresting officer, but the case itself is suppressed from the Arkansas courts public record, making the facts difficult to verify with specificity.
4. There are numerous cases and filings that reference the events at issue, the restraining order, and the fact that Stebbins spent time in jail.
5. There is a separate civil case initiated by David A. against his father David D., which went to a jury; one element of this case was a counter-claim for domestic battery against David D. in what is, to all appearances, the same event. The jury found for David D.

Without the document that Stebbins had suppressed, a non-specialist might easily conclude that he was convicted by a jury of assault – this would be an opinion that a reasonable person may form based on the published facts. The statement is also substantially true; whether it was a jury verdict or a plea is, in my view, a minor detail. And the error he accuses Redfield of making with wilful disregard to its truth or falsehood is one that results directly from Stebbins’ own actions in having the case suppressed from public court records.

Stebbins, of course, disagrees. He wants the judge to order that Redfield “Show good cause why he has a better than astronomical chance of prevailing on his new theory that the Plaintiff in fact plead guilty” – because that’s precisely the kind of thing courts order all the time – and demands that Redfield be held to the specific claim of a jury verdict and be prevented from using the evidence of conviction at all.

Good luck with that, Stabby.