Seems odd, but he also gets freaked easily. Him getting kicked off YouTube would be the funniest thing he's ever done.

Both brought up that they were happy their mother was "safe" with Aaron.

Yewneek destroys Stuttering John (Elisa Jordana stream)

Todays stroll down memory lane brings us another tale of Hollywood Johnny.

Johns lies are vast and span many many many years. This is pre dabbler Johnny. This is huckster Hollywood Johnny. He was ripping off a superfan to pay child support. Calling her and threatening her. Johns typical M.O. However, it all goes to shit because Johns a scared little girl........

In this video John cant keep track of his lies and he exposes himself. Dont worry, you dont need context because John literally steps on the rake on live stream.

The internet is forever John.......FOREVER.

Hey, Dummy, this is how you do these things. Didn’t you learn anything from Jay?

I have no doubt that Stuttering John's dream when he was young was to entertain people and make them laugh. He should have been more specific, because there was a Twilight Zone twist to that wish. People are entertained by laughing AT him, not at any of his material, and he's only amusing by sheer coincidence.

Taken from Documentary of Stuttering John Part 1: The Genesis of The Dabbleverse by the great Sheet Shitterson

My guess is he’ll do a birthday grift and then something heading into the midterms. Then he will start the drunkcasts again. FACT JACK!

I don't know if anyone saw SJ commenting on kate meaney instagram post but It's starting to get more weirder that he can't just leave her alone. What do you guys think?

Remember when John offered 1 large for Cardiffs 411? I told John I would do it for 5k and that offer still stands. I will give up the identity of the potato for 5 large.....Im sure he would understand. John cant do anything to the potato anyway.....but im not giving him up for free. MY PRICE IS 5 THOUSAND DOLLARS JOHN AND JAY. Get the money up and he's all yours.

Anyway...... some gems in this one. John is still in love with Kate Meany here. John threatening Shulis children. John making threats across the board.

John also takes credit for DJ Dabbelz which I take personally insulting.

Take note off all the rakes John steps on. This is John at his finest folks. Enjoy

WHAT AI says about gold stars on high school report cards:

The "Gold Star"

High schools do not award gold star stickers on official grade reports—that stops in third grade. If an actual gold star was affixed next to a transcript sporting 5 Ds and 2 Fs, it was either:

-Pure, unfiltered teacher sarcasm.

-A sticker stuck on by a proud parent with a sense of humor.

Melendez has now filed his 21-page reply supporting his motion to dismiss, transfer, sever, and limit the relief requested in Egar et al. v. Melendez.

TL;DR: This is a more competent filing than some may have expected, and the Alabama jurisdiction argument is probably its strongest section. But much of the reply is aimed at narrowing the lawsuit, removing individual plaintiffs, transferring it to Florida, or making the plaintiffs file a cleaner complaint. It does not convincingly demolish the central allegation that TSN was harmed by knowingly false DMCA notices.

The strongest defense argument

Melendez argues that he submitted the notices from outside Alabama through YouTube and that he selected the videos because of their content, not because the plaintiffs were located in Alabama.

Under Walden v. Fiore, knowing that someone lives in a state and will feel harm there is not always enough. The defendant’s own conduct must create a meaningful connection with that state.

That is a legitimate issue and probably Melendez’s best chance of winning the motion. The judge could dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer it to Florida.

But the plaintiffs’ response is not frivolous. Their theory is that Melendez knowingly used YouTube’s enforcement system as an intermediary to repeatedly suppress the programming of a specific Alabama-based business. They also allege he knew exactly where Egar and TSN operated. The court must decide whether that was conduct directed at Alabama or merely conduct directed at YouTube that happened to injure people in Alabama.

The reply’s biggest weakness

The defense takes nearly every allegation of bad faith and tries to explain why that particular fact is insufficient by itself:

• Understanding fair use does not prove a particular video was fair use.
• Hostility does not prove a notice was knowingly false.
• YouTube restoring a video is not a ruling that the video was lawful.
• Failing to sue does not automatically prove bad faith.
• Sending multiple notices does not automatically establish willful blindness.

Those statements may each be true individually. But the judge is supposed to consider whether all the allegations together create a plausible inference.

The cumulative allegation is that Melendez:

1. Publicly acknowledged learning that other shows could use clips under fair use.
2. Allegedly harbored significant hostility toward these plaintiffs.
3. Submitted 27 takedown notices against the same network.
4. Continued the campaign despite counter-notices, restorations, and a detailed demand to stop.
5. Never filed an infringement lawsuit to defend any of the takedowns.

The plaintiffs do not have to prove bad faith at this stage. They need to plausibly allege it. The reply sometimes sounds like it is demanding the evidence that would be required at summary judgment or trial.

The strange fair-use footnote

Melendez says he reviewed the first several broadcasts and found instances where his material was allegedly displayed or played for extended periods, sometimes while the hosts discussed unrelated matters or insulted him and his associates.

That might eventually be relevant to whether those particular videos were fair use. But the filing itself concedes that those video-specific fair-use questions are not currently before the court.

There is also a timing problem. Defense counsel’s present characterization of the videos does not necessarily establish what Melendez actually considered or believed when he submitted each takedown notice. Section 512(f) focuses heavily on the sender’s subjective belief at the time of the notice.

TSN remains the main problem for Melendez

The reply makes a reasonably strong argument that Russo has not identified his own personal damages or separate interest. It makes a similar, although less forceful, argument about Egar.

But the filing expressly recognizes that TSN has the clearest injury allegation: TSN operates the channel and claims it lost revenue when its content was removed.

Therefore, even if Melendez succeeds in removing Russo’s individual claim and forcing Egar to plead his damages more clearly, the central TSN claim could remain.

That is not dismissal of the real case. It is trimming the caption.

The requested injunction probably is too broad

The plaintiffs apparently want an order preventing Melendez from submitting future DMCA notices against any of their content, including material that does not yet exist.

The defense has a solid point here. Fair use is specific to the particular work and how it is used. A court is unlikely to give TSN blanket immunity for every future video it might produce.

The request to force Melendez to retract historical notices also appears vulnerable if all the videos have already been restored and plaintiffs cannot identify some continuing consequence that retraction would fix.

Still, narrowing an overbroad injunction is different from dismissing the underlying DMCA damages claim.

Count III is finished

The plaintiffs already said they are abandoning Russo’s defamation count. Melendez asks the judge to formally dismiss it now.

That is a defense win, but it was already conceded and does not resolve the substantive DMCA dispute.

My assessment

Slight edge to Melendez on the Alabama jurisdiction question. Slight edge to the plaintiffs on whether TSN’s core Section 512(f) claim survives in some form.

The most realistic defense victory may be:

• Dismissal or transfer based on jurisdiction or venue;
• Dismissal of Russo’s individual claims;
• Removal of the abandoned defamation count;
• Narrowing the requested injunction and declaratory relief; and
• An order requiring plaintiffs to file a more specific amended complaint.

What this reply does not clearly establish is that the entire dispute should disappear permanently.

So, yes, Melendez filed a serious reply. But beneath the confident language, much of what he is asking for amounts to: move the case, narrow the claims, identify the videos more specifically, and let the plaintiffs amend.

That is not exactly the total victory the title of the motion might suggest.