John Roddy

@roddyi.com

658 Followers 297 Following

18 years of projection tech experience at the local movie theater

An enormous Pikachu sticks a hand out of its mouth to grab onto the rail on on a subway train.
William Shatner's Fatty Milkers
There is no textual way to describe just how unbelievably infuriating this animation is.
REAL QUICK WHAT'S YOUR FAVORITE JOKE The post has 69 replies. Nice
Pebble Time 2 with a very basic digital clock face. I tried to find a badly drawn analog clock, but they were all too clean. I'm sorry!
Artist's rendition of what life is probably like for everyone involved here.
Nothing about this injunction, issued two days before execution, makes it any different from other last-minute injunctions the Court has vacated. Every step
Autocorrect ruins another innocent clarification.
This means that the District Judge's order was an unconstitutional retaliation of my First Amendment rights. Period. You can call it “declaring me a vexatious litigant.” You can call it “denying the IFP Applciation.” You can call it “double quarter pound hamburgers falling from the sky” for all I care. Under Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519, 520 (1972), pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers, so a mere semantics dispute shouldn't preclude me from obtaining relief I am otherwise entitled to, especially when all parties involved know full well what I meant.
It is unfortunate that the Court chose to intervene at the request of a convicted murderer to correct the Eleventh Circuit's inconsequential foot fault. What makes it even worse is that the Court does so even while it refuses to correct far more consequential errors for law-abiding citizens, such as the discriminated-against families in Boston, Staff Ser-geant Beck's widow, and the students seeking to challenge university censorship. I respectfully dissent.
INTRODUCTION FACTUAL BACKGROUND ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS The Government Has Vindictively Prosecuted the SPLC.. The Court Should Dismiss the Indictment With Prejudice Or, in the Alternative, Order Further Discovery and a Hearing On These Issues. CONCLUSION
So too, the government's argument as to likelihood of success is a probabilistic long-shot, given that "[n ]o reported federal decision has ruled in the government's favor" regarding subpoenas sent to providers of gender-related care, Endocrine Soc'y w. FTC, No. 26-512, slip op. at 30-31 (D.D.C. May 7, 2026). The government's opposition presumes success here when it has not had any to-date, other than the Texas court's order issued without any opposition, on the same issue See ECF No. 44 at 19 (collecting cases)
In parallel, on May 4, the Advocate launched a collateral attack by moving to quash the same subpocna in the District of Rhode Island below, citing the Northern District of Texas's order as the cause for the district court's immediate intervention. Dkt. 1. RIH thereafter successfully intervened in the Rhode Island action and filed its own motion to quash, thereby voluntarily subjecting itself to the prospect of conflicting court orders. See Dkt. 28,
The Supreme Court has recognized that such ongoing injuries from a subpoena itself constitute irreparable harm. First Choice Women's Res. Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, 608 U.S. __, 2026 WL 1153029, at *9-10 (2026); see also Endocrine Soc'y, slip op. at 21-22 (finding chilling effects from investigative demand constituted irreparable harm). Absent an injunction, that chilling effect would occur before this Court has an opportunity to decide whether the Subpoena that commanded production of those records was lawful
to whom it may concern, i hope this letter reaches you in time. i am in peril. please send help as soon as possible! sincerely cancat [The joke is that the CAPTCHA has the words sincerely and cancat, so the above letter was written by a cat with a can on its head]
to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” First Choice Women’s Res. Ctrs., Inc. v. Davenport, No. 24-781, 2026 WL 1153029, at *8 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2026).
Two cats in a near perfect circle, forming almost a yin yang.
At this point, me being declared a vexatious litigant is actually the result of a self fulfilling prophecy, rather than me actually genuinely deserving that designation. It becomes blatant circular logic as outlined below: "The courts have decided that David Stebbins' filings are frivolous simply because they're from David Stebbins." to "They then proceed to take forever to rule on the simplest of matters in which I am a party, and when they do eventually rule on them, the judges almost always side with my opponents, because they've arbitrarily decided that I deserve it." to "When it happens enough times, judges then proceed to declare me a vexatious litigant, citing to the multitude of lawsuits I have filed that were found to have little to no merit." to "However, the only reason they were found to have little to no merit is because…" and repeat
Nor was it enough that Mr. Rajan believed that his time to object was set to expire soon so he had to rush to submit his filing. (Hearing Tr. 7:18-8:1.) He simply could have requested an extension of time, which the Court would have readily granted. Instead, he "haphazard[ly |" submitted a document generated by Al without verifying its accuracy and then, when challenged by opposing counsel, deflected by trying to blame opposing counsel, doubled down on his conduct, and argued that the Court's Standing Order did not clearly specify the need for human verification only." (Hearing Tr. 6:3-6; ECF No. 215 at 3). This approach was ill advised.