by ersatz_cats
I said a year ago that 2023 would be a year full of “L”s for disgraced gaming cheater Billy Mitchell, and I’d say I was right. Granted, I was expecting his vindictive lawsuit against Twin Galaxies to be done with by now, as well as his other petty lawsuit against Karl Jobst in Australia. But aside from a few incidental legal maneuvers, Billy’s lost most everything else. His six-hour deposition full of lies was made public for all to see. He was caught in real time lying about red joysticks and phantom phone calls. He got caught faking more evidence, which of course he doesn’t want anyone to see. His cheated Donkey Kong scores were the subject of a fantastic four-hour YouTube documentary by Veritas. Billy even lost his best friend, not to mention some of his few remaining supporters. It’s like a country-western song, except about fake video game scores, and also very stupid.
But the damage to Billy’s bogus legacy may run even deeper than we know. On November 27th, TG filed a brief “Request for dismissal”, dismissing the cross-complaint (a.k.a. the countersuit) against Walter Day only:
To be clear, the countersuit is still active, but it’s now being levied against Billy exclusively. We’ll discuss what exactly that means a bit later. For now, it seems TG has set aside their differences with Billy’s staunchest supporter. The terms if any are undisclosed, meaning Mr. Day may not even have to travel to California to testify when this case finally does go to trial. (Oh, by the way, that trial was pushed back yet again, this time until April.)
But that’s not all we’re covering today! Team Billy were unsuccessful in getting Tash (TG’s lawyer) disqualified from the case, but Judge Chang still wasn’t happy with Tash’s questioning of certain of Billy’s witnesses. The case has been put on lockdown, with all depositions and discovery from this point forward designated confidential. But that hasn’t stopped some damning new testimony from emerging through the courthouse’s iron curtain. Fair warning: There will be a higher quantity of lawyer bullshit than normal to wade through, but hopefully I can make it all interesting and entertaining. And once we cover all that, we’ll ponder how exactly Walter Day was able to escape from Los Angeles.
TASH ON TRIAL
At this point, if you need a full recap, just read my previous post on this saga, which came with a brief refresher of its own. When last we checked in, Billy’s attorneys were in the process of trying to get David Tashroudian, a.k.a. Mr. Tash, disqualified from the case. If their motion was successful, this would have meant Twin Galaxies (and custodian and spokesperson Jace Hall) would have had to find a whole new attorney, and would have had to get them fully up to speed on the case, all in the brief window between now and trial. The whole exercise was a wild pipe dream, and one that I suspect was more about Billy’s lawyers trying to appease their client by giving the appearance of going on the offensive than it was about any sort of cogent strategy or hope for success. (As I’ve mentioned before, some of Billy’s attorneys’ filings seem to indicate they want this case terminated as much as anyone, but for whatever reason they don’t wish to bail outright on Mr. Mitchell without a justification other than “We got absolutely suckered”.)
I covered Tash’s response to the disqualification motion, but Billy’s side filed an additional reply, signed by Kristina Ross, which became available shortly after my post went live:
Right at the start, the overall tone is the same as before. To paraphrase, “Mr. Tashroudian is a wild man out of control, who sees conspiracies everywhere, who has no regard for the law or for decorum, and who thinks his crusade to expose fraud justifies everything he does”. From there, the author digs right in to the same argument we discussed previously over whether Walter Day’s deposition was confidential, and thus whether Tash broke the rules by including portions of it in a public filing on September 20th.
For reference, here again is the language of the protective order both parties agreed to in late 2022:
Last time, the jokers at Manning & Kass argued that disputes over confidential designations should be settled within thirty days of a “meet and confer”, which in the case of Walter Day’s testimony, occurred on August 30th. Thus, they argued, the party maintaining the confidential designation would have until September 29th to clarify that designation. However, as seen above, a simple check of the record showed that this thirty day window began not when M&K said it did, but actually began when the deposition transcript was first received, which was July 20th.
Billy’s lawyers are now doing a complete 180 on that argument, and are saying (to paraphrase) “Well, ackshually, if you read that protective order again, technically it doesn’t say the confidential designation goes away after thirty days. It just says we have the right to specify particular portions as confidential within thirty days if we want, with no indication that anything would change if we don’t. So technically, we can just do nothing, and as long as we don’t cooperate, everything we designated will stay confidential until the end of time.”
So we’re supposed to believe the agreement specifies a thirty day deadline for no reason whatsoever?
If you think this sounds intentionally obstructionist, I’d say you’d be correct. At this point, we’re going to take a quick sidebar (pun always intended) to look at an email chain attached to this reply brief. Manning & Kass seem to present this “Exhibit A” as if it helps prove their case, when in fact it accomplishes the exact opposite.
First, on August 30th, Tash tells Kristina Ross that he plans to use some of Day’s testimony, and that it would save a lot of headaches if they lift the confidential designation on certain topics:
Kristina responded by deflecting to Robert Cohen, Walter Day’s attorney:
As you are aware, we do not represent Walter Day. This communication and Objection should not just be sent to our office so I have copied Robert Cohen here.
Tash was like “Motherfucker, I don’t have to ask Rob Cohen nothin’. You’re the ones who designated Walter’s testimony confidential!”
Robert did not mark the deposition confidential. Tony did. If he did that unintentionally, then I will move forward as if the deposition was not marked confidential.
“Tony” in that case refers to Anthony Ellrod, another member of Billy’s all-dud legal team. Granted, Kristina expressed her belief that both Ellrod and Cohen designated the whole deposition as confidential, and I don’t want to assert which account is true without knowing for sure. But it would be pretty hilarious if it was just Billy and his attorneys seeking to suppress Walter Day’s testimony without Walter’s consent. Does Billy not want Walter publicly speaking for himself in his own defense?
By the evening of that same day, August 30th, Tash specified nine portions he wished to include, and why none of them should be confidential. And then? Crickets. On Sept. 3rd, Tash sent a reminder:
Following-up on this. Can you please advise?
Two days later, a response from Kristina:
Tony is still in trial and we need to go through it with Robert as well, so we will have to go through the process specified in the protective order and CRC.
On Sept. 7th, Tash tried again [sic]:
I am having a hard time filing the Day declaration conditionally under seal. Since Plaintiff made the confidential designation, and will have to make a motion to keep these documents sealed, can you tell me know whether you intend to do that so I can just file his deposition transcript normally? If you do not intend to make the motion, it does not make sense for me to run through this circus.
Kristina replied:
I will do my best to get you a response by tomorrow.
Poor old Tash, still trying to work with them, attempted to be gracious about the delays:
Thanks. The rules in the Court’s general order are different from the CRC and so it is kind of confusing. I have reviewed Walter’s deposition and there does not seem to be anything confidential in there.
But once again, the stonewalling continued. Another reminder from Tash the following day was met with another terse reply from Kristina:
David,
We are still looking into these issues.
Kristina
How long does this fucking take? If Team Billy wanted this testimony public, of course they’d put in some elbow grease and get it done in minutes. But since they don’t want anything public, and want to frustrate Tash as much as possible, this journey of checking some paperwork is like trying to drive the wrong way on Interstate 5 on Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend during a torrential downpour.
Tash checked in again the morning of Sept. 11th. No word. He did it again late that evening. Again, no word. Tash tried again the following morning. It was finally twelve days after Tash’s initial outreach – longer even than Billy’s “beyond perfect” stunt during Thanksgiving 2020 – when Tash finally got a response from the big guy himself, Tony Ellrod. Tony dismissed these days of attempts, claimed his firm are still considering whether to lift any confidentiality, and incorrectly asserted they had until September 30th to make a decision.
And so, with Billy’s attorneys refusing to cooperate on their own confidentiality designation, Tash proceeded to file the motion including the no-longer confidential testimony. And thus, ending our sidebar and circling back to the reply brief we were originally discussing, Tash’s attempts to work with Billy’s attorneys for a mutual resolution are framed as evidence that Tash believed in his heart of hearts that the testimony really was confidential. Of course, one may be forgiven for alternatively thinking Tash was hoping to stave off exactly this sort of legal nitpicking and obstructionism we see unfolding.
As to the point raised by their reply, that the protective order doesn’t specify what exactly happens after the thirty day period is allowed to lapse, this seems intentionally in bad faith. Read the text again, if you wish. Parties who designate the entirety of a deposition are clearly and explicitly given thirty days to identify specific portions for which “protection is sought”. Do Billy’s lawyers really think the intention was for this thirty days to be an arbitrary suggestion? If any lawyer could easily label any and all testimony confidential with no requirement to justify this designation and with no expiration, why aren’t all lawyers doing this all the time? And if this was the case, why include all that other language about how to designate specific portions either during or after the deposition? Note that it appears the text of this protective order may have been authored by Manning & Kass themselves (with their firm logo stamped along the margin) so perhaps this weird “gotcha” was a sinister Easter egg they intentionally planted and hoped to weaponize when they were backed into a corner. But if that’s the sort of conduct they’re engaged in, why should Judge Chang take them or their contrived grievances the least bit seriously?
Much of this reply brief is a reiteration of the same arguments Billy’s attorneys made in their initial motion to disqualify Tash, much the way someone in an argument may “respond” to a rebuttal by merely restating their initial position again as if those points haven’t already been addressed. Team Billy are still super-upset about Tash “badgering” Walter Day during his deposition, and the way Tash contacted Jerry Byrum and Triforce. Triforce, lying shill that he is, is still testifying that the dissemination of deposition media is the reason he won’t make himself available for deposition.
There are a lot of weird typographical errors throughout this filing. In that paragraph, it reads as though the initial author was trying to say “While it is true that Defendant can settle its claim against Mr. Day on any terms it deems, these communications are not being used as to the settlement itself”. In other words, “Sure, what Tash said about settlements is correct, but that’s not what we’re talking about” (even though that totally was what they were talking about). But then after it was written, someone came along and separated the first clause into its own sentence, and then inverted “can” into “cannot” so now it says the opposite. Did they hand off proofreading duties to their case law specialist? Or is this just more general mindfuckery, where everything Tash does or says has to be reframed in the most malevolent way possible?
Once again, Tash’s failure to provide his copies of the FAMB photos is presented as proof of “improper tactics”, whereas their own failure to follow through on their identical obligation was a “clerical error”. In other words, “We screwed up, but because we screwed up, that proves Tash was acting maliciously!” Ross also makes it sound as though their production request for those photos was straight-forward, but as I discussed previously, the actual text of the request was a poorly conceived catch-all that wasn’t clear about anything. (Again, you can’t just say “Please send me all the things about the stuff” and expect quality results.) While Ross is correct that Tash did not provide documentation of the FAMB photo metadata, he did properly assert the claim in detail in his declaration. Ross could have made a counter-claim, i.e. “No, that’s not what the metadata says”, but we know she can’t do that, because Tash’s assertions are true. So instead, she calls Tash’s claim “self-serving” – as if his brief ought to be filled with aimless chatter that serves no purpose – and slaps quote marks on the word “metadata”, probably while doing mockingly dramatic jazz hands and making spooky ghost noises.
Ross also reiterated their position on Tash instructing Robert Mruczek not to answer an argumentative question (“snide remark” would probably be more accurate), or advising Robert that he’s not required to produce his communications without a subpoena, although this time she dropped the exaggerative suggestion that Tash told Mruczek he was allowed to destroy those communications when Tash clearly said no such thing:
To be clear, we spectators still have not been given an explanation for these allegedly missing Facebook messages between Robert Mruczek and Jace Hall. This would seem to be the point of a “Request for judicial notice” filed by Billy’s side in late November, which asked the court to recognize as fact that direct messages on Facebook are not deleted when two parties unfriend each other, as Hall and Mruczek may have done during one of Robert’s many failed attempts to leave Twin Galaxies drama forever.
While no such judicial notice was sought regarding messages made via the Signal app, Ross was similarly interested in such messages between Jace Hall and Karl Jobst. Ross argues that since auto-deletion is not an automatic setting, it could arguably be said that Jace and Karl are “intentionally destroying evidence” by using that setting:
We do, however, have new clarity on previously discussed communications involving Paul Dean and Steve Harris, which were not produced by Jace Hall despite a discovery request. Ross acknowledges that the relevant “William Mitchell” declaration was authored by the son of the plaintiff, not by Mr. Mullet himself, and that it should have included both of those messages as exhibits. On a personal level, I find this omission particularly funny, since of their twenty or so claimed grievances in their original filing, this was the one I would have had to admit could potentially have some merit, if they had actually bothered to include the evidence.
First up, we are offered an email chain between Paul Dean and Jace Hall from 2015, which was apparently reproduced via an old bootleg copy of Microsoft Works:
The email conversation pertains to a Pac-Man competition at a Twin Galaxies branded event that year. If you search for Billy’s name in this email chain, it only comes up in relation to hot sauce prizes offered to the top three, and for the fact that Billy himself put up the top score at the event before technical issues forced the contest to end early. (Yes, apparently Billy won an actual, live gaming competition, at Pac-Man no less. I’m guessing David Race was not in attendance.)
One could maybe argue whether these communications are actually “related to plaintiff” per the language of the initial production demand, which was request number 88, seen on page 86 here. But sure, while it’s hard to find any malice behind this omission, these messages should have been included. However, what I find interesting is that, of those production requests we see, request #88 was the only one which stretched back to 2015. Another request asks for communications between Jace and Nancy Bouvier going back to October 2013, but otherwise, each and every other request shown uses January 2017 as the earliest cutoff. Only on this one request was 2015 used.
This suggests to me that Team Billy knew full well about this particular communication with Paul Dean, and may have even been looking to sneak this request in as another “gotcha” so they could one day cry to the judge when Jace slips up and searches his inboxes from 2017 forward as he was doing for each other request. Adding to this peculiarity is that those numbered requests were issued and signed in January 2023, whereas the messages shown as exhibits were forwarded from Paul Dean to Billy himself several months later, in August 2023. Did Paul verbally tell Team Billy about these messages prior to January 2023? It sure seems they knew about them somehow.
The skulduggery gets a bit more stark with regard to Steve Harris. As I noted previously, the request for communications with Steve Harris was the only one that specifies Walter Day as the subject:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 106:
Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between DEFENDANT and Steve Harris RELATED TO Cross-Defendant Walter Day since January 2017.
And now, we finally get to see this odious missive from Jace Hall to Steve Harris for ourselves:
There you have it! In 2022, Jace sent a message to a LinkedIn profile for Steve Harris, hoping to get in touch with the real deal. Jace never heard back, so he probably assumed the profile was inactive, or worse was set up by some bot or impostor or something. Jace certainly didn’t consider it a communication “between” himself and Mr. Harris, or else he would have included this message like he did everything else Billy’s attorneys requested. Meanwhile, Steve Harris, founder of Electronic Gaming Monthly and longtime friend of Billy’s, gave Jace’s inquiry the cold shoulder, but sent this message straight off to Billy to be used against Jace in another discovery request ambush.
As an observer to this case, this leads me back to a question I’m frequently left pondering: Why exactly is Billy getting all this deference, including material assistance and cooperation, while Jace Hall – certainly a man of at least equal stature in the pantheon of gaming history – is forced to suffer these slings and lies from Billy and his accomplices? Why do these jokers flock to Billy’s side, when Billy is so obviously the liar and aggressor? While I fully understand people’s desire not to be the bully’s next target, there’s a huge gulf between wanting to stay out of the crossfire, and actively providing the bully more ammunition, as people like Steve Harris have done. Karl Jobst spoke recently about people whose moral compass points only back to themselves. I feel similarly about those whose moral conviction only emerges when it’s safe. I guess what I’m saying is, I think people watching this case should be taking stock of who’s taking which side now, before that dust has settled. And no, claimed “friendship” is no excuse for involvement in this level of wrongdoing. The evidence is public, it’s clear, and it’s overwhelming. This case has gone on far enough, and done enough damage to honest individuals and to the community at large. I believe, once this fiasco is over, the people assisting Billy with his spiteful demolition should not be allowed to act as though they did not participate in that ruination.
After a couple detours, Team Billy’s reply circled back around to the issue of deposition media, but this time it was the broader topic of whether Tash violated court procedures by providing deposition transcripts to Karl Jobst or, as Ross theorizes, to me. As I said before, I’m not interested in either validating or contradicting their speculation about me, which I see as nothing more than a fishing expedition. The only new legal citations Ross offers are copyright law – which is a bit ironic given how Billy files DMCA copyright strikes against the video of his deposition which he definitely does not own – and California Government Code 69954(d), which again appears to be focused on protecting court reporters and thus would not be grounds for Billy or his attorneys to claim a grievance of their own.
Previously, Ross tried arguing that Billy’s ability to argue his case was being hurt by Rob Childs’ reluctance to testify, and that this reluctance was the result of the dissemination of deposition media (i.e., “It’s all Tash’s fault”). But this argument was destroyed by Tash’s reply, and also by common sense. In short, as I remarked in my last update:
The first portion of deposition media from this case was published in late July, via Karl Jobst’s video “Cheater Billy Mitchell’s Fake Story Is Falling Apart”. And it turns out, Rob was supposed to be deposed way back in January, in Florida, during the same visit as Billy’s deposition, but Rob backed out at the last minute. So it’s safe to say Rob’s reluctance wasn’t resultant from anything Tash did – not unless Dwayne is fiddling with the timeline again. Rob just surmised (astutely), all on his own, that there’s lots of hobbyist attention on this case, and his multiple provable lies were going to make him a focus of that attention. It was probably a mistake for Rob to lie for his friend all those times, but you know, hindsight is 20/20.
But if you missed this old chestnut, don’t worry! Ross is here to dredge this dead argument back up from the grave, like a decrepit zombie made of lies. Their argument here makes so little sense, I start to wonder if I’m just missing something obvious:
For starters, Ross’ stated recollection of her last communication with Rob’s attorney was off by a magnitude of five years. Upon initial reading, it did seem a bit weird that Rob would be backing out of everything only a month after the original dispute verdict and over a year before Billy’s Sept. 2019 legal threat which Rob participated in. Here’s the actual communication Ross was referring to:
Obviously, Ross meant 2023, not 2018. Regardless, as we discussed last time, and as Ross herself notes, there was a subsequent email in June, where Rob’s attorney offered Tash conditions under which his client would be willing to attend a deposition:
My client will agree to talk off the record with Mr. Hall if you agree to no video/zoom of his deposition. We will be incurring expenses and effort to be deposed in Los Angeles.
My client might still appear for trial if it could be arranged by ZOOM and there was protection from the Court or parties that no video would be created. As my client wants to stay out of the internet video hoopla
I think the Court would honor our request. I am not asking for protection from the trial but just no video or zoom for Robert’s deposition. Let me know, thanks
Amusingly, Billy’s attorneys were not included in that email, which I think speaks volumes about how Rob Childs feels about this ongoing lawsuit his former friend is continuing to wage. Ross characterizes the exclusion of her firm from this conversation using the word “conveniently”, as in, “the June 2023 email conveniently does not include Plaintiff’s counsel”. She could have just noted that her firm was unaware of this communication between Tash and Rob’s lawyer, but no, it was “convenient” that she was excluded. And we all do know what it means when someone uses the word “conveniently” in a sarcastic tone, now don’t we? Apparently, all of this is an unfair conspiracy against her and her client, and not simply the result of people being fed up with their insane and tedious horseshit.
If you replaced Ms. Ross with a reasonable person working for a reasonable client, the proper response here would be to say “Oh, my bad. I was naturally unaware of this email I was not made privy to. And obviously the more recent message conveys Rob’s attorney’s more recent thoughts on this matter.” But no, Ross is trying to argue that “Plaintiff’s point still stands” because Rob’s attorney previously said Rob would not attend trial, and because other unrelated things happened later. And as evidence of a correlation between these unrelated later events and Rob’s reluctance, Ross offers… literally nothing. This reads like someone with a narcissistic need to never be seen as being wrong grasping at whatever they can to justify a previous statement when, perhaps, they should have just let this one go.
However, we can tell that Ms. Ross isn’t quite that extremely out of touch. Remember her complaints that Tash didn’t provide his communications with witnesses such as Carlos Pineiro and Steve Kleisath? Remember Junior’s assertive declaration bolstering this allegation?
I have reviewed all of the documents produced by Defendant in this action. In response to the requests to produce communications with Carlos Pineiro, Steven Kleisath, Robert Mruczek, Chris Gleed, and Dwayne Richard, no communications between Mr. Tashroudian and these individuals were produced.
Cue the sad trombone:
I have a general policy of not weaponizing a mea culpa. We all screw up sometimes. We have to allow people to admit when they were wrong, or else we encourage exactly the sort of doubling down we find so offensive. I do wonder, though, exactly how this happened. Did they not double-check first? Did Ross herself simply take Junior’s statement and blindly repeat it as fact? Is Ross ignorant of the evidence behind the case she’s arguing? I also couldn’t help but notice that this apology is voiced by Ross on behalf of her client, and not by either Billy or Junior themselves. (I still struggle to imagine what a sincere apology from either Mitchell would even sound like.) Lastly, while I don’t want to go overboard, I do feel it’s fair to make an exception to my general mea culpa policy in this case, given that Ross basically had no choice but to admit they were wrong. Tash provided the bates stamp numbers for each of the provided communications. They were dead to rights on this one. While Billy himself doesn’t hesitate to lie through his teeth, his lawyers will naturally be a bit shier about such conduct, given that they have more on the line professionally. At any rate, I’m certainly not inclined to give them credit for withdrawing a claim which facts forced them to abandon.
That brings us up to date on Team Billy’s new arguments. But before we move on, I’d like offer a quick reminder once again that literally none of these things being argued over have anything whatsoever to do with the merits of the actual case. We’re so far afield from the question of whether Billy submitted cheated scores to a competitive leaderboard that we’re now debating whether the attorney representing that scoreboard unfairly instructed a witness during a deposition a whole five years after the allegedly defamatory statements. But again, that’s because Billy’s side has no case whatsoever. They can’t address the technical evidence. They can’t patch up all the lies. They can’t conjure witnesses out of thin air. So this kind of crap is what we’re talking about instead.
“WE ARE NOT AMUSED”
This motion and a few other matters were addressed at a hearing on December 1st. Later, on December 11th, Judge Wendy Chang entered two written rulings, one of which covered this disqualification motion exclusively. (We’ll get to the other written ruling later.)
Right from the start, Chang noted the exceptionally high bar to effectively ban someone from retaining the lawyer of their choice:
The Court is mindful of the posture of this motion – a party is seeking to disqualify the attorney for his adversary. The law has demonstrated a reluctance to do so, for obvious reasons, and the published cases appear to do so only where the opposing attorney has in their possession improperly obtained confidential information that belongs to the moving party, which could be used against them inappropriately.
Chang cited a bunch of case law saying that “disqualification is preventative, not punitive” – in other words, there are other ways to punish a lawyer for past misdeeds – and that “Not every instance of unprofessional conduct or bad judgment by an attorney warrants disqualification”. Chang also notes the many ways in which forcing a party to obtain new counsel at this late stage of the process would undermine the judicial process as much as the alleged conduct being punished. Later, she concludes:
There are no facts before the Court that Defendants have improperly obtained confidential information that would place the facts of this case within the case law authorizing disqualification of opposing counsel. Thus, the Court has no alternative but to deny Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify, without prejudice.
Disappointingly though, the rest of the ruling reads as though Judge Chang accepts most of Team Billy’s claims and arguments at face value. She offers no skepticism of Triforce’s claim that he’s avoiding a deposition because of media attention rather than his role in perpetrating Billy’s lies. She notes that Tash “appears to have” improperly advised Mruczek during his deposition, and that some of his other deposition conduct should have been prohibited. Judge Chang even takes the Billy narrative about Jerry Byrum a step further than Ross did, characterizing it as though Tash was trying to influence Byrum to testify a certain way, rather than urging Byrum to cooperate in the search for Billy’s bogus plaques. Chang summarizes her thoughts as follows:
While the Court is compelled to deny the motion for disqualification without prejudice based upon the case law, Plaintiff has placed substantial evidence of Defense Counsel’s conduct that is deeply troubling to the Court.
Granted, the motion before her was to disqualify Tash, so his conduct is what she’s compelled to discuss. Tash can’t really use “The other guys suck more” as a defense for his actions, nor is Chang herself necessarily empowered to dismiss those actions in that context. But as before, her words don’t carry any sense of awareness of the totality of the situation. She had sixteen pages to at least offer a remark of offense at the duplicitous actions she has observed from Billy and/or his attorneys, which have included telling several demonstrable lies in testimony, lying directly to the court, misrepresenting witness testimony, fraudulently pushing this case past anti-SLAPP, and conspiring to hide fake evidence away from disclosure. But this of course assumes Judge Chang is actually observing what’s going on. Is she not paying attention? Should Tash also be filing a disqualification motion against Billy’s attorneys, outlining the case against them? The whole procedure is ordinarily a waste of everyone’s time, but such a motion would seem prudent if that’s the only means by which offensive conduct will actually be examined and reprimanded.
Even worse, Judge Chang casually rubberstamps Team Billy’s narrative that the publication of deposition media could (emphasis for the moment on “could”) constitute a violation of the California Rules of Conduct [sic]:
In the closed gaming community, to the extent that such online attention and ridicule may intimidate other potential other witnesses who seek to avoid a similar fate, this could violate Cal. Rules Prof Conduct Rule 3.4(a) and 3.6(a). To the extent that Defense counsel’s effort to court the public attention seeks to reach a potential jury pool, this would violate Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct Rule 3.6.
Rule 3.4(a) states that a lawyer “shall not” “unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence, including a witness”. So again, at least to some extent, Judge Chang appears to accept Team Billy’s argument that media attention is what is causing Billy’s witnesses to hesitate to cooperate, rather than their innate concern for their own complicity in Billy’s ongoing fraud. Same thing with Rule 3.6, which prohibits lawyers from making public statements that “have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding”. On top of all this, Judge Chang laughably entertains the argument that this could potentially taint a jury pool, virtually none of whom will have ever heard of this case or of Billy Mitchell. (And even if somehow a Karl Jobst fan does end up in the jury pool, there are processes to easily exclude them from actually sitting on the trial jury.)
While the ruling reads poorly for the judge’s attention span, it could also be said that what has truly drawn her ire more than Tash’s actions themselves was his initial defiance in the face of Team Billy’s crocodile tears. As she remarks:
While what Tash says does make sense, if you just show up and see a cloud of smoke and two parties fighting with each other, his actions could appear unjustified and excessive without knowing the events leading up to them. At any rate, it seems Tash finally got the memo that he wasn’t going to win this fight in this way:
I’m a bit curious to know how this December 1st hearing went, and what exactly the full context was behind these quotes. Did Tash say “I respectfully submit that anyone who doesn’t see that Mr. Mitchell and his friends are conspiring to hide away their fake evidence needs to get real”? Did he drunkenly tell the judge “Get real, you ******* ****”? There’s a big difference between those. Also, is that quote “would be a good boy” verbatim? How does that even work? Like, how does one say those exact words about one’s self? “I would be a good boy if… I had… candy”? Maybe Tash said “I will be a good boy”. Or maybe the words “good” and “boy” were uttered in sequence and the word “would” is part of an undeclared paraphrase on the part of the author. I know I’m just a nobody out in the Internet wilderness, but I would really appreciate a bit more academic rigor from whoever’s writing this bullshit.
Anyway, as restated in the conclusion, Team Billy’s shenanigans wouldn’t excuse the sorts of violations of the rules being alleged:
There are no exceptions to the Rules of Professional Conduct based on witnesses’ purported bad behavior or lack of candor. Nor is there an exception where counsel believes an opponent is engaged in a bad-faith, frustrating litigation strategy. An attorney is bound to behave ethically in all aspects of his practice. Every day, lawyers in this country successfully litigate zealously and aggressively on behalf of their clients – within the bounds of the ethics rules.
This court, at the December 1, 2023 hearing, and again in this ruling, has detailed to Defense Counsel the impropriety of past conduct, citing to corresponding ethics rules. While the Court is under no obligation to give notice of a potential or actual referral to the State Bar of California, the Court provides it here – Defense Counsel must conform his conduct to that which is required by the California Rules of Professional Conduct and related ethics authorities. Defense Counsel is on notice that future conduct of a similar vein may result in a referral to the State Bar of California.
As for the attempts by Billy’s lawyers to characterize Tash as having “inappropriate emotional involvement” in this case, Judge Chang amusingly dismisses this by way of a mere footnote, saying that “Such is a matter between defense counsel and his client”. I guess feigned concern will only take one so far. However, for the more serious matters, Judge Chang has scheduled a follow-up hearing on January 11th, where both parties can argue the merits of a “Potential Disciplinary Referral” of Tash:
Much as I give Judge Chang a hard time for allowing this perjury circus to continue, I am certainly capable of reading between the lines here, and I encourage each of you to do so as well. What’s at stake is a potential referral for ethics violations. No actual action has been taken yet. Chang even said outright (to paraphrase) “I don’t have to be giving you this warning before issuing a referral, but I am doing so now”. Tash may have been called to the principal’s office, and given a stern talking to, but nothing has been put on his permanent record yet. All of this is about compelling Tash to change his course now.
And in this light, all of Judge Chang’s remarks, qualified with words such as “could” or “would” or “to the extent”, take on a different meaning. These are the actions of someone who wants to look concerned, and who feels compelled to acknowledge a basic appearance of impropriety, but who doesn’t want to follow through on severe admonishments. And so a super mega ultimate “I’m really not fucking around this time” absolutely final warning is given, and a date to reconvene is set, with the hope that she can then say “Now that some time has passed, and Mr. Tash has been behaving himself for the last month, it looks like there’s no need to escalate this any further.” And sure, this ruling is still lacking any sense of pushback on the hypocrisy of the accusing party. But that’s what you get from someone who appears to be reluctant to come down on either side.
It’s not clear how vigorously Manning & Kass will continue to pursue any sort of formal reprimand against Tash. On the face of it, this disqualification motion was always a fantasy. The judge was never going to throw the entire case into upheaval this far into the process, not without conduct far more egregious than anything Mr. Tash has ever done. And I’m willing to guess that Manning & Kass aren’t especially interested in personal revenge when there’s no profit in it. They’re deep enough in this losing case they’re married to without piling on yet more pointless work for themselves. What they wanted was to chill Tash’s zeal and curb his effectiveness. In that regard, this ruling was the best they could have hoped for.
JUDGING THE JUDGE
We’ll get to the other written ruling soon. A moment ago, I made a reference to Judge Chang’s attention span. Something came up in her disqualification ruling which has me a bit concerned, and it just so happens to deal with yours truly. A couple times, Wendy took light shots at me, which I’ll say is certainly fair play lmao.
Hahaha! Gosh, you know, I’m starting to think this judge doesn’t like me. Though I can understand. After all, I did insert her face into a meme.
I could quibble over the characterization that I mock “witnesses”, as opposed to mocking “liars and cowards who shill for litigious frauds like Billy Mitchell, whether they happen to be formal witnesses or not”. Certainly, some of the people caught up in Billy’s web of lies were innocent bystanders who assumed he was being truthful, and I try to be fair to them in that regard. But whatever, it is a technically factual statement.
What really caught my eye though was Judge Chang’s next inference of my sincere and earnest journalism. Let’s roll back to October, and my piece titled “Judge Wendy Chang skips justice day”. That post was the first time I referenced Judge Chang by name, when discussing her misguided ruling on Tash’s motion for terminating sanctions and how it let Team Billy off the hook for trying to pass phony plaques off on the court. In that write-up, I made fun of Team Billy’s ridiculous story regarding Jerry Byrum, the current president of Walter Day’s International Video Game Hall of Fame. Jerry was actively communicating with Billy’s attorneys, forwarding screenshots of his conversations with Tash for them to use against TG, but gosh golly gee darn, those lawyers said they just couldn’t get Jerry to cooperate in sending the actual plaques back to Billy, or even taking a photo of them, or even confirming whether or not they were in his possession at all. This is, of course, because those plaques may as well be radioactive uranium for Billy’s case. These actions of Jerry, Billy, and the lawyers, all make sense when understood as part of a plan to lie and hide Billy’s poorly thought-out fake evidence away where no one can ever see it. But instead, we’re asked to believe a bunch of nonsense, including that Jerry’s reluctance to assist Billy with locating his supposedly exonerating awards is strictly because Tash keeps asking about them, and not because Jerry’s friend Billy wants him to not cooperate.
Or as I more concisely remarked at the time:
Ah, so it’s really Tash’s fault that Byrum won’t cooperate and supply either the fake plaques or a better photo of them… all while he does cooperate in forwarding just these screenshots of text exchanges that Billy’s lawyers want.
You all read it, you understood the situation, and you understood what I was referring to. Judge Chang seems to have read it as well, probably because Billy’s attorneys submitted the entirety of that write-up as an exhibit in a later filing. However, if Chang did read it, I’m not sure she did so very carefully. Take a look:
I get that I rely on pronouns a bit too much at times. (I mean “pronouns” in the classical sense, not the gender identity sense.) You know what I mean, like when you hear a story and it goes “He said this, then he said that, then he responded, then he replied”, and you lose track of who is who. It’s probably the number one thing I correct when doing my proofreading – making sure it’s always clear who my “he”s and “she”s and “they”s are referring to.
But how on Earth could anyone read my blatant comparison of Byrum’s proactive assistance of his friend Billy versus Byrum’s reluctance to do anything to undermine said friend Billy, and interpret that as though I was comparing Byrum’s stubbornness to Tash’s cooperation? What exactly was I supposedly saying Tash was trying to “cooperate” with? Did the person who wrote that think that Tash was the one forwarding Byrum’s texts to Billy’s lawyers? Or did the author just skim and pluck whatever caught their eye out of context?
Obviously, the judge doesn’t have to read my belabored observations about this lawsuit or her work. She’s probably never been to this website, and only read what she did because Billy’s own lawyer effectively said “Hey, here’s a thing, read this”. But I believe this item subtly demonstrates that she did read it just enough to draw meaning, but not enough to draw anything resembling the correct meaning. (We’re going to see another similar example of this in a moment.) And admittedly, I haven’t combed through and checked each and every one of Wendy’s case law citations and such; I only caught this mishap because I wrote the darn thing, and I immediately knew that was not what I said.
What concerns me isn’t that I won’t be getting any subscriptions from Wendy Chang any time soon. My concern is that she could be taking the same approach with all of the material in this case, including testimony more urgent than anything I have to say. Is she just glossing over two parties bickering, rolling her eyes at what she sees as childish video game nonsense, oblivious to the fact that one party brought this matter to grown-up court based on an endless series of demonstrable lies? Is the reason that Team Billy have thus far gotten away with so many lies and so much fraud that the judge isn’t paying that much attention to what’s being said and done?
Unfortunately, it seems this may be a trend for Judge Wendy Chang beyond this case. After my previous post about her, someone from the hard-working Whistle Crew sent me a link to a site called The Robing Room, where people can anonymously rate their judges:
http://www.therobingroom.com/california/Judge.aspx?id=28347
Judge Chang has a couple good reviews, but most are negative, with some remarks that sound maddeningly familiar. Check out this one:
Oof! Sound like anyone we know?
HAVING ISSUES
As mentioned before, the disqualification motion was the focus of its own written ruling. Judge Chang issued a separate ruling tackling several other matters being brought to her attention:
The more complicated of these was her ruling on Tash’s motion for “issue sanctions”. This involves a couple different threads which are now intertwining, so let’s start with a recap. In his lawsuit, Billy claimed his “Rickey’s World Famous Hot Sauce” business suffered economic damages resulting directly from TG’s statements about his Donkey Kong scores. We never really discussed this, as it seems to have happened during a lull in the action, but at some point in 2023, Billy’s side quietly withdrew their claim of lost Rickey’s Hot Sauce sales. This is actually kind of a big deal, since this is a defamation lawsuit we’re talking about, and damages is one of the things Billy would have to establish at trial. Are his claimed “damages” just going to be his and Walter’s TV show that didn’t get picked up? Or Billy getting allegedly humiliated by his doctor? Exactly what harm did TG’s statements supposedly do to him? Is Billy going to sit on the witness stand and cry about his hurt pride?
Anyway, back during early discovery, these claimed hot sauce losses were still on the table. TG asked for proof of these “damages”, including actual bank statements from Rickey’s. Billy’s lawyers pushed back on having to prove their claims, saying basically “Surely our word is good enough”. In late 2022, Tash moved the court to order Billy to fork over those statements, and Judge Chang agreed. (We’ll get to the particular language of that exchange in a moment.) Billy finally complied… sort of… and provided statements for two bank accounts connected to Rickey’s. At the time, everything seemed fine.
During his January 2023 deposition, Billy testified under oath that he received none of the money from the sale of Twin Galaxies to HD Films (Jace Hall’s company). However, in Walter Day’s deposition in June, Walter admitted that he (Walter) did in fact give Billy Mitchell $33,000 of that money, and even worse, that Billy asked him to keep that fact a secret. Walter claimed this money was deposited into an account belonging to – wait for it – Rickey’s Hot Sauce. The problem, of course, was that this payment was not reflected in either of the two Rickey’s bank statements that Billy had previously provided. (Gosh, it’s almost as if Billy was deliberately trying to hide this payment all along.)
Not long ago, Tash filed for something called “issue sanctions”, basically moving the court to establish as fact that Billy received that money – a fact that the defense would have been able to establish had Billy either testified honestly at deposition or provided all the requested bank statements as he was supposed to do in the first place. Tash didn’t add a bunch of requests for monetary sanctions, or anything else that might feed into Team Billy’s approach of bogging things down with unnecessary paperwork. It was straight and to the point: The plaintiff violated this court’s discovery order, and here is the appropriate remedy.
Of course, Kristina Ross had to oppose this somehow:
What was Team Billy’s response?
Basically, “Well, you asked if Billy or his employees or attorneys or agents received any money, but technically, you never asked if any money was given to the business that he owns”. As to why they chose to provide bank statements for only two Rickey’s Hot Sauce accounts while knowing there were at least four such accounts in total, Ross argues that the original production request was in the context of Billy’s claim of economic damages, and thus they only provided records for accounts which they felt supported that claim.
Borrowing from their successful strategy before, Ross leaned on pure technicalities, arguing that Tash’s sanctions motion really ought to be a discovery motion, and that Tash didn’t “meet and confer” as would be required for a discovery issue. Granted, I’m a lay person, but it seems they were a step past that point, given that they had already gone through that process and that Judge Chang had already ordered Billy to produce exactly these documents.
Ross also expressed concern over the sensitivity of this bank information, feeding back into her own bogus narrative of Tash gleefully violating confidentiality everywhere. This was reiterated in a separate motion to seal any bank records used as exhibits:
To be clear, I can’t think of a single time Tash provided anything to anyone that was eventually found to have been properly marked as confidential (and not already public through other means). It’s just Billy’s camp arguing it, over and over, sometimes in outright defiance of the written record. They’ve been telling their big lie so much that they’re circling back around to it, waving their hands, screeching “All this confidential stuff everywhere! Confidential, confidential! We can’t comply with this, because all this confidential stuff keeps confidentially confidentialing!”
For what it’s worth though, while I do find this case and its related media very fascinating, I have zero interest whatsoever in possessing anything containing Billy’s unredacted bank information. Billy seems to have a tendency of trying to weaponize the bad consequences of his own poor choices, and so if his generally unscrupulous practices blow up in his own face, I want to be able to say I couldn’t have possibly been responsible for any damages, because I never had access to that information at any time.
Tash fired back again with a reply brief, asserting that “Plaintiff’s failure to produce these documents was willful and meant to hide the fact that he received the sales proceeds”. Tash reiterates why unredacted bank statements are necessary, and why Billy should have to sit for a second deposition to answer for this subterfuge. As for the technicalities, Tash cites California Code of Civil Procedure 2031.320(c), which deals with failure to obey a court’s discovery orders and which does not require a “meet and confer”.
In her ruling, Judge Chang cites “an incremental approach to sanctions”, which should start with monetary sanctions – i.e., a fine – before leading to “evidentiary sanctions” (we’ll get to what that term means a bit later), then “issue sanctions”, and finally termination of a case “only as a last resort”. I suppose the implication here is that “issue sanctions” are a bit further down the list than she feels is warranted. She also cites case law that nonmonetary sanctions should only be imposed as a way of rectifying the dereliction in the discovery process, and not as a form of punishment.
The judge does make it clear she was unimpressed by Team Billy’s reasoning that “Rickey’s World Famous Hot Sauce bank statements” meant “Just the couple bank statements we felt like handing over”:
“[Not] justified or well taken”, lmaoooo. I won’t lie, when I see a remark like this, it makes me want to like Judge Chang. Unfortunately, her moments of scrutiny for Team Billy’s monumental accumulation of malarkey seem few and far between.
Chang felt the technical argument over whether Tash’s motion was a “discovery motion” was unclear, and thus she cannot rule that Tash violated any requirement for a “meet and confer”. However, Chang did deny Tash’s motion, on the basis of an entirely different technicality:
Basically, Judge Chang is saying that, in December 2022, the court didn’t actually order Billy to produce the bank statements; rather, he was required to provide “further discovery responses”. But what exactly is that supposed to mean? “They had to keep answering questions about the bank statements, but they didn’t have to actually produce those bank statements”? What kind of nonsense is this?
You may be shocked to hear this, but I don’t believe this assessment from Judge Chang is accurate. I dredged up the old filings from late 2022, and sure, Tash’s motion was called “Motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection”. But that’s just longwinded legal speak, and it wasn’t misrepresentative anyway. “Further responses” means “Give us the shit we’re asking for”. And the actual text made crystal clear that it was a motion for an order compelling production of the bank statements:
This motion is made on the ground that good cause exists for production of the documents demanded
Twin Galaxies respectfully moves this Court for an order after IDC compelling Plaintiff to produce bank statements for the corporation Rickey’s World Famous Hot Sauce for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 pursuant to Twin Galaxies’ Demand for Inspection (Set One) No. 59 as revised during the parties’ meet and confer efforts. An order compelling production is appropriate under the circumstances because Plaintiff has put the financial condition of the corporation at issue in this case as he seeks damages for loss of the corporation’s revenue.
Twin Galaxies respectfully submits that Plaintiff should be compelled to provide Twin
Galaxies with a further response to Demand for Inspection No. 59 and to produce the requested
bank statements forthwith.
Kristina Ross’ opposition filing at that time seemed to have the same understanding, adding that if Billy was compelled to provide bank records, TG should be compelled to do the same:
Should the Court find that Plaintiff’s privacy right does not extend to Rickey’s Hot Sauce’s
bank records, Defendant should likewise be compelled to produce their bank records which were
previously requested in discovery and objected to by Defendant on the same privacy grounds.
On November 14th, 2022, a proposed order was granted, directly ordering Billy’s side to produce bookkeeping files and “income statements” from Rickey’s, while allowing TG to move to compel further responses to “Demand for Inspection” #59 at their upcoming hearing on December 6th. And following that hearing, Judge Chang issued a minute order, granting the aforementioned motion to compel:
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Twin Galaxies, LLC on 11/07/2022 is Granted.
It strains credulity to believe that anyone involved in this process understood this ruling as either “Answer further questions about bank statements without actually providing them” or “Provide some bank statements while concealing others”. And in case there was somehow question as to what this meant, Judge Chang made clear she was granting the motion filed on November 7th, 2022, which as we’ve read above, called specifically for production of those bank statements.
But what I find fascinating about this distinction is, Billy’s own lawyer never argued that there wasn’t a court order to produce Rickey’s bank statements! Ross’ arguments relied on whether the order applied to all Rickey’s bank statements or just a few select ones, and whether Tash was required to “meet and confer” prior to filing this motion. In fact, Ross’ own language in her recent opposition filing seems to concede her understanding that there was an order for production:
As such, pursuant to the Court order, Plaintiff produced the bank statements from 2017-2019 related to Rickey’s two operating accounts.
TG’s side agreed there was a court order. Billy’s side agreed there was a court order. Chang seems to have skimmed just the title of Tash’s filing, and pulled this semantic distinction out of thin air, all of her own accord. It’s as if Judge Chang is determined to find arcane ways to keep this bogus lawsuit on life support.
At this point, you may be asking what sort of accountability exists if a judge, hypothetically speaking, is completely off the rails. Obviously, the first bit of accountability comes from elections, although that doesn’t mean much when incumbents run unopposed. And of course, rulings can be overturned, but that disadvantages a party who wants to get to trial quickly and is not interested in tying their own case up in appeals. In other words, parties whose interests lie in dragging cases out as long as possible in the hopes of exhausting their opponent’s resources and spirit benefit the most from piss poor adjudication. I don’t think Judge Chang is quite “completely off the rails” in this regard, but when putting this ruling on issue sanctions up alongside her ruling on disqualification, it’s clear she at the very least is not seeing the bigger picture. The reason why Billy and his attorneys are thus far escaping relatively unscathed is because they’re concocting stupid, implausible stories to justify their actions (stories which they argue can be sorted out by a jury at trial), whereas Tash is up front about why he’s chasing down Jerry Byrum, or why he filed Walter Day’s testimony the way he did, etc. But it’s the judge’s job to see what’s happening, to understand that her court is being taken advantage of, and to intervene accordingly. Otherwise, she incentivizes everyone to lie.
Going back to Chang’s “incremental approach to sanctions”, she argues that since TG did eventually get the bank statements showing this $33,000 payment, they ultimately weren’t prevented from litigating their case, and thus no nonmonetary sanctions are warranted. (Of course, this misses the fact that Billy was able to successfully evade this discovery until after his deposition, when Tash would have been able to grill him about his lie.) I was just about to ask, for the umpteenth time, “Why should anyone comply with court rules when there are no consequences for defying them”, when I got to this part:
While the Court may not grant nonmonetary sanctions in this context, the Court will consider a request for further monetary sanctions from Defendant in the form of the fees incurred by Defendant in an effort to address this issue. The Court authorizes that motion to be heard the first day of trial.
Okay, I guess that’s something. A plaintiff can lie to the court and evade disclosure and waste everyone’s time, but if the other party manages to catch him red-handed in one of these acts, then he has to reimburse them for the time spent catching him in that one particular act.
Where Judge Chang minced no words whatsoever was in her directive, starting now, that Billy must provide allllllll Rickey’s bank statements, without exception, and for realsies this time:
Geez! These delays are getting ridiculous!! /s
As for the subject of redaction, Judge Chang found an acceptable middle ground. Billy is allowed to redact the account numbers, with the exception of the last four digits. This allows TG to differentiate for themselves which statements go to which accounts. Also names of account holders must be identified, but their contact info may be redacted.
ARE WE THERE YET?
We’re almost done wading through this tediously lawyerrific quagmire, and we’ve got some amazing testimony to go over once we get there, but there are a couple other matters that got addressed in December as well. Judge Chang also ruled on disputes raised in a joint discovery statement:
Much like the joint statement that first revealed the fake Pac-Man plaques to the world, this filing runs down a list of discovery disputes the two parties were not able to resolve among themselves. For instance, Billy’s attorney attempts to spin a conspiracy theory on whether Tash or Jace Hall provided Karl Jobst the FAMB photos prior to Billy’s deposition, or whether they told Karl about a plan to ambush Billy with those photos. Tash’s position was that his brief answer was sufficient:
Once again, all of this is way far afield of the actual subject of either the lawsuit (whether TG’s statements about Billy’s scores were defamatory) or the countersuit (whether Billy and Walter committed fraud in the sale of TG to Jace Hall). Tash made sure to point this out, in response to a request that his client admit he violated California law in disseminating deposition transcripts:
Plaintiff certainly has not shown how having Defendant admit that it violated California law will lead to the discovery of any facts to support that Defendant maliciously made the statement at issue. There should be some limit to the discovery in this case. This request has reached that limit.
However, Billy’s attorney seems to opportunistically think this does indeed strike at the very heart of the question of “malice”. (I will say, it is a bit odd to sue someone, tell a bunch of lies about them, waste countless hours of theirs, and then point to their reactions and say “See? They don’t like me! That means they must have had it out for me back before all this began!”) And this is where you-know-who’s name comes up, yet again:
What’s at issue is something called “work-product doctrine”. Basically, outside of exceptional circumstances, lawyers can’t be compelled to produce materials created in the preparation of litigation (which includes defense against litigation). This privilege extends beyond attorney-client privilege, and so, an attorney’s communications with an independent researcher may fall under that umbrella.
The idea is that these materials can reveal unfair insight into an attorney’s litigation strategy. Obviously I’m not going to discuss specifics, but purely hypothetically, let’s say Tash knew of an independent researcher with extensive knowledge of this case, and – again, hypothetically – asked this researcher questions like “Has Billy himself ever said he did his score in June 2004?”, or “What do you think Billy’s explanation for his fake perfect score will be, and what would be the best response to that?”, or “What do you think Billy would want in a settlement, and what would be his non-negotiables?” Even if this hypothetical researcher had no formal employment or professional association with Mr. Tash, such communications could reveal his legal strategy, and thus could fall under this privilege.
At this time, it’s beyond my expertise to say whether this doctrine applies in the case of my communications with Mr. Tash. However, Judge Chang settled this by ordering an “in camera” review of the contested communications, with “in camera” being Latin for “The judge will have someone review the documents privately to determine what material falls under work-product doctrine and what’s fair game for discovery”. This was said to settle request #230 (all documents exchanged between myself and Tash), request #301 (all communications between myself and Tash), and request #254, which I believe is actually a typo referring to request #243 (all communications between Tash and David Race’s lawyers).
There are a few other matters addressed in this written ruling. Billy’s side was ordered to produce communications Billy has relating to his Pac-Man plaques and the “search” for them back in June. Judge Chang accepted Billy’s uncontested motion to seal bank statements used as exhibits, but rejected their aforementioned “request for judicial notice” regarding Facebook messages. Curiously, along with the discovery motion, Tash had moved to compel Billy to sit for a second deposition, and yet I can’t find anywhere in Judge Chang’s ruling where this matter is addressed. Oh, and the trial was pushed back again, this time to April 26th, because of course it was.
Lastly, Judge Chang weighed the prospect of extending the standing protective order – in other words, of making all discovery and deposition material in this case confidential by default. Chang begins by illustrating the American discovery process, which allows for liberal discovery balanced by restrictions on dissemination:
To be clear, neither Tash nor TG did anything wrong in sharing deposition transcripts with Karl Jobst or anyone else. Despite Team Billy’s cries to the contrary, care was taken to ensure that material properly and legitimately designated as confidential was not shared with anyone. Judge Chang cites case law that more restrictive protections require a showing of “good cause”, which means more than just “the prospect of negative publicity”. However, court processes do tend to reveal information that would otherwise remain private, and the court does have the right to restrict public access to that information as it sees fit:
And here’s where I have to break an honest truth to some folks: As fascinating as this case is, and much as we do have a very real public interest in the evidence and the outcome, we don’t necessarily have a legal right to see all of Billy’s emails, or the Twin Galaxies purchase agreement, or even closed-door depositions. (FYI, Billy’s deposition wasn’t even done at an actual courthouse; it was conducted in a small conference room at some random hotel.) I know, some of us are old enough to remember Judge Lance Ito allowing wall-to-wall coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial. But you’ll notice how very few details about Billy’s ongoing lawsuit against Karl Jobst in Australia have leaked out, given how opaque the Australian court system is. The amended U.S. Constitution is very protective of our right to free speech, and defaults to protecting the freedom of information, but at some point that freedom should and does have limits. Personal privacy is a thing.
And yes, I know, it’s quite ironic that Team Billy are complaining about discovery revelations when they’re the ones who brought this high score nonsense to court in the first place. Billy and his lawyers could have avoided all these embarrassing depositions and revelations by not filing bogus lawsuits filled with lies in the first place. I don’t feel the least bit of sympathy for the negative media they’ve received as a direct result of their own actions. And obviously, the real reason they want all this material under wraps is so they can stop getting blasted in gaming media for all their lies, and so bystanders have fewer opportunities to add to the evidence against them. (In other words, if publicity helped their case, they would be all for it.) But they are allowed to petition the judge for more privacy, just as we’re allowed to laugh at them and call them hypocrites for doing so. And while it is our right to observe and comment on the proceedings, if the judge isn’t inclined to dispose of the case outright, it is within her right to try to insulate the functioning of those proceedings from any outside distractions.
And so, Judge Chang extended the “Stipulation and Protective Order” to all discovery materials, meaning everything is now labeled “Confidential” by default. (And things like bank statements can still be upgraded to “Highly Confidential”.) If you’re asking if this kills my ongoing coverage of this case, honestly, it shouldn’t affect it that much. I had already adopted a policy of limiting myself to reporting on things which are publicly available, and not on rumors or information I may have heard through other means. (You may be shocked to hear this, but I was made aware of Billy’s fake plaques before the public at large. As a journalist, I get told many things in confidence. But I sat on my knowledge of that insane bombshell until there was something public I could source.) The basic filings and motions for this case will remain public, behind the court site’s paywall. There may occasionally be a spicy exhibit that gets redacted, but even if so, we’ll still be given an idea what it is. And it’s a shame that, at least for a while, we may not get to see Jace’s deposition the way we got to see Billy’s. But in the end, with most of the depositions out of the way, this protective order is not that big a deal.
But I know that answer is no fun. So let’s pretend I said this instead:
“This protective order is completely outrageous! It’s a violation of every God-given right I hold as a red-blooded, tax-paying American. Judge Wendy Chang has completely lost her marbles doing this. Now she’s trying to outlaw journalism itself! She really thinks she’s going to march Jace and Billy into the Thunderdome and make them fight it out where none of us can watch. I’m not exaggerating when I say this is the worst decision in the history of jurisprudence, and is proof of the complete incompetence of everyone, everywhere.”
Anyone want to take bets on how soon that’ll be taken out of context?
THOSE WHO FIGHT FURTHER
Okay, that’s it. We’ve eaten all our vegetables. Who wants some bomb-ass ice cream?
If you thought a stern warning and a tongue-lashing would take the fight out of the Mighty Mister Tash, you thought wrong. He’s right back in that ring, swinging for the fences again. (What? I like mixing sports metaphors.)
Tash has dropped a new motion for sanctions on the table. Tying into Chang’s “incremental approach to sanctions”, Tash is requesting an “evidentiary sanction” (which would forbid Billy from claiming at trial that he received a “Player of the Century” award from Namco), an “issue sanction” (in which the court would certify as fact that Billy received no such award), or an outright termination of Billy’s case. If this sounds a bit familiar, Tash did ask for some of these things before, but in different contexts. As we discussed earlier, the prior motion for issue sanctions was over the secret $33,000 payment Billy lied about. And the prior motion for termination covered several topics, including the fake plaque chicanery and various deposition lies.
Portions of this motion cover the same ground as before, illustrating the extent to which the plaque fraud was perpetrated, and how Billy and his cohorts denied TG its right to inspect those forgeries for themselves. When requesting serious considerations, it’s good to lay out the whole case again, so nobody forgets the depth of the evidence involved. Also… you know, some people have to read something a few times before it really sticks.
Along with this new motion were filed a few declarations. Three of them are the exact same declarations from our friends Motti Gabler, Laura Carrell, and Jacob Pilkington filed back in September. Since Tash was laying the whole case out yet again, it’s proper for him to also bump the testimony establishing that case. Tash also refiled his declaration and accompanying exhibits, except with a few additions:
The declaration of David Bishop, Billy’s old Namco friend, is added as a new Exhibit 25. As you may recall, Bishop testified that he gave Billy high-definition photographs from his appearance at the Tokyo Game Show in 1999, which is a bit funny, as Billy said he had no photos of the plaque he was holding at that event. (Yes, Billy’s told so many lies that even his own witnesses end up hurting his case.) Tash also adds more recently discovered examples of Billy flaunting high-resolution photos from that event, which can be seen on merchandise and on banners displayed at his speaking engagements and even on his silly Cameo:
But the real fireworks come courtesy of a brand new declaration from Elizabeth Hunter, known formerly as Liz Bolinger:
This declaration is only seven pages, but it is spicy as hell! You should really just stop and read it in its entirety. But for purposes of summary, Liz was the “corporate secretary” and later the president of the International Video Game Hall of Fame. You may recall Billy, at 25:20 in his deposition, claiming he’s never been on the board of directors for the Hall of Fame. Well… Liz recalls things a bit differently:
This is quite a detailed recollection of the process through which Billy was added to the Board roster, and of Liz’s own motivations in opposing Billy’s inclusion. Unfortunately, as Liz details, her conflicts with the old guard were only beginning:
Woah!! She “didn’t understand” because she was “just a little girl”, huh?
Is Judge Chang reading this?
Ah, the old Team Billy approach of threatening to sue people if you don’t get your way.
So now we have Walter Day, Jerry Byrum, and Liz Hunter all testifying that Billy was a member of the IVGHOF Board of Directors, with Liz giving detailed illustrations of Billy’s inclusion and involvement. This is in addition to 2010 and 2011 tax filings recently discovered by Karl Jobst, which you can find here, and which list Billy as “Director”, along with seven others:
https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Escape-IVGHOF-2010-tax-filing.pdf
https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Escape-IVGHOF-2011-tax-filing.pdf
Let me say, Billy Mitchell getting busted by tax filings is exactly the kind of crossover I wanted to see. A keen eye may notice that the 2010 filing lists Billy, whereas Liz’s recollection places his inclusion “in or about” spring of 2011. However, you can see that these tax filings were signed by treasurer Barry Flint on the final day of 2012. They also don’t include Liz’s name, despite contemporary corroboration of her role on the IVGHOF board. Both of the 2010 and 2011 filings would seem to reflect the board roster as of the moment they were filled out, and thus are not reflective of the actual year they are supposed to represent. Whether this is legally sound for an IRS 990 form is beyond my expertise. Either way, Billy’s claim of never having been a director is cooked.
Since we’re talking about 501(c)(3) tax filings, I can’t help but notice that no proper “Hall of Fame” has been built, with the IVGHOF’s property apparently floating around between a few different area storage closets. A superficial glance at these events leads credence to the idea that the IVGHOF may never have been more than a vehicle by the Walter Day circle to siphon out local dollars as “appearance fees” or whatnot, with uncooperative residents like Liz being ousted as soon as the veneer of local legitimacy was no longer needed. But of course, that would have to be a topic for another day.
Getting back to Billy’s lie, there’s been some speculation about why he would claim to never have been a director when the evidence clearly says he was. Billy clearly went into his deposition with at least some plan of what answers to give to certain questions (such as where his “awards” went to, and what his “Music City Con” was all about), so this may have been a matter he was anticipating. The easy answer is that Billy was trying to distance himself from his “donation” of his phony plaques. If he’s currently a director of the organization, the judge could find that he does have control over them, and rule accordingly when he fails to produce them. This is the theory Tash subscribes to in his filings, and I lean in that direction as well. Of course, this doesn’t really explain why Billy would say he was never in that role, as opposed to something softer like “I used to be on the board for a while, but I haven’t participated in many years, and they haven’t updated their website”. (To be clear, the IVGHOF did update their website many times, while continuing to list Billy as a “Board Director” each time, but we all know that wouldn’t stop Billy from asserting otherwise.) Maybe Billy’s used to over-exaggerating every denial? Or perhaps there’s some other bit of drama or malfeasance in the board’s past he knows to distance himself from? But again, that’s just speculation. Billy has shown himself to lie about very stupid things, so we can’t even assume there was a good reason in the first place.
Hey, speaking of that plaque “donation”, what does Liz have to say about that?
Liz was exactly the person who would know… and she does know that it never happened.
Given Billy’s extensive web of lies around his reproduction plaques and his involvement in IVGHOF, this is honestly some of the most damning testimony this case has seen. If there were justice in this case, Liz Hunter would be like Captain Marvel, flying in at the end of the long battle to wreck Billy Mitchell’s shit once and for all.
Oh, and since we’re on the subject, why is Liz speaking up now?
WELL, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT!! The publication of depositions has actually helped make evidence available. Attention on this case is encouraging people to speak up and testify. Crazy how it’s Billy’s cronies, who have actively participated in his lies, who are the only ones being affected by this sudden fear of the spotlight. For what it’s worth, the extension of the protective order could potentially prevent future witnesses from discovering and contradicting Billy’s lies, but it also didn’t preclude the public from gaining access to this damning new testimony.
Getting back to the motion for sanctions, Tash ties together Billy’s lies about his role as an IVGHOF director, his failure to produce either any of the plaques or his photos of them, and his “intent to defraud the Court”. Tash argues that “the full panoply of sanctions are on the table considering the egregious discovery misconduct outlined in this case motion”, adding that the circumstances would render a basic discovery order “a futile and idle act”. Tash provides numerous case law citations, including from a 2017 case titled “Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell”. In that case, the California Court of Appeals upheld sanctions levied against “Cal Fire”, stating:
The trial court found it was appropriate to assess monetary and terminating sanctions against Cal Fire for engaging in pervasive discovery abuses. Among the enumerated exemplar abuses the trial court identified were Cal Fire’s failure to produce responsive documents in violation of court orders, false deposition testimony by Cal Fire’s lead investigator, falsification of interview statements incorporated into Cal Fire’s discovery responses, spoliation of Cal Fire’s investigator’s notes, and inclusion of false reports in Cal Fire’s discovery responses.
Barring a termination of Billy’s case, Tash is seeking a proposed issue sanction, which would read:
The fact that Plaintiff did not receive any award or plaque from Namco proclaiming him to be the Video Game Player of the Century is established.
And if Judge Chang should feel this is a step too far, Tash also provides the following proposed evidentiary sanction:
Plaintiff is precluded from introducing evidence to show that he was given any award from Namco other than the award depicted in Exhibit L to Plaintiff’s deposition.
I can already hear Billy and his remaining loyalists howling with indignation at that one. “Billy can’t even present his evidence!? What kind of kangaroo court is this!? These TG conspirators don’t want you to hear the truth!” But you have to remember, “evidence” in this context can mean literally anything, down to and including spoken testimony, as in “Me and my friend say it happened”. In this case, Billy’s cohorts conspired to produce a deliberately low-resolution photo of two fabricated Pac-Man plaques, which were then whisked away to someone’s attic or dumpster somewhere, all so Billy could try to pass those off as genuine without having to present them for inspection. If the court finds your evidence is faulty (to put it lightly), and that you conspired to deny the opposition the chance to fairly examine and weigh that evidence, you can be barred from trying to slip your unjustified claims in to the jury through oral testimony. These are exactly the sorts of exclusionary processes that separate the court of law from the “court of public opinion” you hear so many people complain about.
Failing each of these options, Tash requests an “evidentiary hearing”, during which the depositions and CCTV footage can be examined in detail:
Considering the gravity of the charges against Plaintiff, that he has fabricated and spoliated evidence, an evidentiary hearing is especially necessary here if the Court is inclined to deny this motion. An evidentiary hearing will give the Court an opportunity to fully review all of the documentary evidence on the issue, review all of the videotaped deposition testimony – particularly that of Plaintiff, Jerry Byrum, and John Grunwald – to make an informed decision on credibility.
LATE BREAKING NEWS
As I was finalizing this update, Kristina Ross filed a reply brief and accompanying declaration:
Ross leans heavily on the narrative that this is essentially the same motion for termination Tash filed in September, which Judge Chang dismissed in favor of “a properly filed motion in limine, or to be addressed in another form, during the immediate pretrial phase of this case”.
“Instant motion”, for those who don’t speak legalese, means “the motion we are currently discussing”. Ross reiterates their position from before, that the plaques disappeared on their own, that anything her firm said about the plaques that may have been incorrect was just some mysteriously unattributable misinformation which they oh so sincerely believed to be true, and that mean old Mr. Tash is to blame for Jerry Byrum’s reluctance to cooperate. This time, Ross even went so far as to sprinkle in a dash of “When you think about it, we’re the real victims here”:
Moreover, as the Court is aware, the requested plaques are not in the possession of Plaintiff and are in the possession of third party Jerry Byrum who refuses to provide them, including even pictures of them, due to the harassment Mr. Byrum incurred from Defendant’s counsel. Therefore, it is Defendant’s counsel’s own conduct that has led to the evidence not being produced in this matter. If anyone is entitled to an evidentiary sanction on this issue it is Plaintiff.
What I find interesting is that key elements of this narrative from Team Billy rely on the testimony of Jerry Byrum. And yet, if the court were to take Byrum’s testimony as honest, that still sinks Billy’s ship anyway. It means, once again, that Billy lied under oath about not being an IVGHOF director. They try to plug one hole, and two others start leaking.
Ross asserts there is “no evidence” to support Tash’s “baseless claim” that Billy (or an accomplice) created fake Namco plaques. I guess she’s hoping Judge Chang forgets all about Motti Gabler’s expert forensic analysis proving neither of the motel room plaques are the same as the one Billy appeared with in Japan. It’s probably a good thing that Tash re-filed that analysis. Ross also seems to struggle with case law citations yet again:
Ross also disputes the notion that they haven’t provided the Tokyo Game Show photos Tash is pointing out and requesting. Curiously, she doesn’t provide examples of those photos as exhibits, or cite really any specifics. I’m trying to be fair here, but I do remain a bit skeptical, given the previous intentional bad-faith argument Ross offered in September that Billy doesn’t need to supply photos of these newly “discovered” plaques because Tash can just use any photo of the old plaque he can find online. Is Ross here referring to the one stock photo of Billy at Tokyo Game Show, hoping the judge doesn’t understand we’re talking about different photos, some of which were of high enough resolution to be printed on giant banners?
Ross also argues that, with the escalated protection order, Tash should have filed many of his exhibits under seal. Materially, this means nothing, since these exhibits were all previously public, so it reads like another attempt to frustrate Tash on technicalities. Then finally, as if to bolster her narrative that this is the exact same matter discussed previously, Ross tacks on her own motion requesting monetary sanctions for the 19 hours she spent filing this opposition. I guess, if your case relies on bullshitting the judge, you have to carry that act all the way through.
Despite Ross’ narrative that this is the same motion Judge Chang denied previously, I can easily identify two key distinctions. First, there is damning new testimony from Liz Hunter, to the effect that Billy’s entire narrative of having donated the plaques to IVGHOF was a lie all along. Second, the relief being sought is different. The September motion sought only terminating and related monetary sanctions, while the new motion is requesting either issue or evidentiary sanctions in the alternative (if termination is not granted), as well as a hearing to review the evidence. (I do find it interesting that Ross did not oppose Tash’s suggestion of an evidentiary hearing.) Additionally, while Judge Chang did dismiss Tash’s September motion as “premature”, one could say that motion was never really decided on its merits, but rather a technicality.
I wish I could say I had high expectations for the outcome of Tash’s new motion, but I’ve been burned by this court before. It is true that, to some degree, issues like these should be left up to the “finder of fact”, a.k.a. the jury. That’s what the trial process is for. But as I’ve argued previously, that dynamic changes when the lies seep out from testimony about the facts of the case itself. It’s not the jury’s job to assess whether Billy has the ability to produce the plaques and is willfully failing to do so. The judge has no obligation to pretend Billy hasn’t been caught dead to rights presenting forgeries as evidence, and certainly not to ignore defense testimony to that effect while taking whatever Billy’s cronies say at face value. Once again, Judge Chang is being presented a golden opportunity to clear Billy’s blatantly fraudulent lawsuit out of her court, and is being given even stronger basis for doing so. It would be easy for her to say “It’s not for me to make these decisions” and cite some technicality to let herself off the hook, all while Billy and his attorneys continue their crooked shell games and laugh behind her back. But all Tash can do is keep beating this drum. Hopefully Wendy finally realizes this entire bogus lawsuit being pushed by Billy Mitchell and the dishonest scumfucks at Manning & Kass is a waste of her time, and everyone else’s.
BACK TO IOWA
And that brings us to our last big topic of the day. This whole matter – the cheated Donkey Kong scores, the claim of defamation, etc. – was originally brought to the court in April 2019 by Billy Mitchell himself, albeit with material support from others in the form of favorable witness statements and such. Billy listed as his defendants “Twin Galaxies, LLC,” and “Does 1-200”. For those who don’t know, “Does” is a reference to “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”. In other words, Billy was saying “There are up to 200 other people I also intend to sue, who I haven’t been able to identify yet.” Since I highly doubt Jace Hall’s TG has ever had 200 employees, I can only assume this meant anonymous participants in the online forums where Billy’s scores were analyzed and discussed. Yes, this dude thinks he can sue the Internet for saying mean things about him.
In 2020, after an anti-SLAPP motion was denied, Twin Galaxies filed a countersuit for fraud related to the sale of TG to Jace Hall. While some “Bill-ievers” predicted this countersuit would be easily dismissed for being outside the statute of limitations, it turns out they had no idea what they were talking about. For things like breach of contract, at least in California, the “clock” for the statute of limitations starts from the time the fraud is discovered, not from when it first occurred. You can’t just knowingly sell someone a bunch of crap under fraudulent pretenses, and then get away with it forever if they don’t catch it in time. In the case of Twin Galaxies, Jace Hall obviously believed the scoreboard and brand he was buying was legitimate, as Billy and others had assured him. Shocked he was to discover, both through the 2018 score dispute and (it would appear) through later internal investigation, that Billy knew these assurances were bogus the entire time. Filing this as a countersuit related to Billy’s defamation claim allowed both cases, dealing with most of the same witnesses and evidence, to be tried concurrently.
However, there was an interesting twist to TG’s counterclaim. TG didn’t just sue Billy himself; Walter Day was added as a co-defendant as well. This makes sense as, regardless of Billy’s financial stake in the organization (including outright ownership of the TG arcade in the late ’80s), Walter had long been the face of and primary owner of the brand. The burden of any lies Billy told to coerce the sale of TG would be shouldered by Mr. Day as well. Walter was served with the countersuit in October 2021 and, after trying unsuccessfully to quash his summons, spent the next two years putting forth the absolute bare minimum effort in his defense.
And thus we come to our latest development on this front: Walter Day has officially been released as a co-defendant in Twin Galaxies’ countersuit.
There isn’t a lot of information provided here. What you see is what you get. The dismissal is “with prejudice”, meaning TG cannot re-file against Walter Day later, at least not for the same issue(s).
It’s easy to assume there’s some sort of give-and-take settlement involved here, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Note that, in the case of Billy’s lawsuit against Apollo Legend in Florida, while the terms of settlement itself were kept confidential between the parties, the existence of a settlement was made clear through a public stipulation and order of dismissal:
In this case, all we have is a brief notice saying that Twin Galaxies is choosing to drop its claim against Walter Day. So, unless we’re given more information in the future, it’s fair to proceed under the assumption that there was no “settlement” per se, that Walter didn’t offer anything in exchange for his release, and that TG simply made this decision for their own strategic purposes.
So what, you may ask, was the point of all this?
One must remember that, right or wrong, any legal claim is only worth pursuing to the extent that a jury can be convinced of its merit. So one possibility is that TG decided their case against Walter specifically was too weak – perhaps, discovery and testimony did not give TG the ammunition against Walter they’d hoped for – whereas Billy’s ongoing perjury parade has made him a figurative dead duck. (I should make clear, as usual, that I speak only for myself here, using publicly available evidence as my foundation. Even if I did somehow have inside knowledge of TG’s goals and strategies, I wouldn’t post that information here for the benefit of bad faith actors.) So, if you subscribe to this theory, that would make TG’s countersuit against Walter Day a losing effort.
It’s also possible TG concluded that, even if they did secure a verdict that Walter Day participated in fraud and breach of contract, he has no money to rectify those losses. There’s no point in suing someone when all you’ll end up with is your own lawyer bill. Walter Day is generally known to live modestly, and to not be particularly wealthy. However, he can be said to have various assets, business interests, or “film rights”. Also, this would be a curious reason for dismissing the case now, since (barring some revelation we aren’t privy to) this is the kind of consideration that should have factored into TG’s decision to sue Walter in the first place.
Now, one might say “Well, you’ve already come this far. And this case is already going to trial, anyway. Why not just follow through, and get what you can?” Indeed, it stands to reason that Billy the narcissist would probably reject any settlement offer short of “Reinstate all my scores, and grovel apologetically at my feet, and pay all my lawyer fees”, which I’m guessing will be a hard pass from Jace Hall. And since this does appear headed for an inevitable jury trial, I can’t imagine any preparation for the case against Walter in particular would be especially burdensome, when the other guy is intending to fight you all the way anyway.
Therefore, if all of this is true, then it stands to reason that TG considers it to be in their active interest to not have Walter Day as a co-defendant. And this does make some sense. Let’s just say, it’s very unlikely that Billy will succeed in getting the jury to view him as a sympathetic character. But Walter Day, the “nice old man” who gosh golly wouldn’t hurt anyone, does have the ability to garner sympathy. Dismissing Walter from the countersuit drops him from that equation. The only lost opportunity here comes if TG finds themselves unable to argue things like breach of contract against Billy alone. And sure, Walter may yet testify at trial, and given how far his (perhaps willful) gullibility has taken him all these years, he’ll probably say he still believes his longtime friend would never lie to him. But without being a party to the case, he’ll just be a witness; he won’t be sitting next to Billy at the plaintiff table.
(Oh, and even if Walter does intend to testify at trial, TG will be able to ask him the same questions posed during his deposition, about Billy being an IVGHOF director, the secret $33,000 payment to Billy, etc. And if he tries to change his story, that sworn deposition testimony can be invoked. So Walter may follow the lead of his pal Triforce and find himself conveniently unavailable that week as well. We’ll see!)
But that brings us back around to the question at hand: What exactly was the point of suing Walter, and then dismissing him before you even get to trial?
You could call it a failed maneuver, but I’m not so sure of that. As we’ve seen – and this is my first time covering a civil case to this depth, so this was news to me – participation doesn’t really seem to be that mandatory. Some witnesses, including domestic ones, have effectively told parties to fuck off, and there doesn’t seem to be all that much those parties can do about it. Tash is even getting reprimanded for aggressively pursuing a militantly uncooperative witnesses! Even subpoenas have their limits, given that this isn’t a murder investigation. Civil litigants can’t force Google or Microsoft to hand over personal communications or anything.
And so, if TG had merely come to Walter Day with a subpoena and a request for deposition, he might have told them to go take a hike. (Or, rather, he could have made himself “perpetually unavailable”.) However, by adding Walter to the countersuit, that forced him to participate, or risk summary judgment. This isn’t to say TG’s claim against him was not genuine or sincere. But it is to say, even if TG is choosing to walk away from the claim against Walter with no settlement in hand, that doesn’t mean the venture was a failure. What little we’ve seen from Walter’s deposition was damning enough, at least with respect to TG’s ongoing counterclaim against Billy. In the end, TG got from Walter Day what they needed.
Again, I’m speaking only for myself here. But I wanted to caution readers against both the possible perception that TG “failed” in its countersuit against Walter, and any expectation that anything more will come from Walter’s side of this equation. But hey, if TG did manage to secure some additional settlement condition not reflected in the public paperwork, such as an admission of fault or a promise of participation at trial, that’s just a sweet bonus! I guess we’ll have to wait and see if we notice any changes in Billy’s and Walter’s frequent collaborations.
Meanwhile, if you’re asking when this bullshit will ever end, I do have good news for you! Check out this golden nugget tucked away in Chang’s disqualification ruling:
“Emergency Rule” refers to COVID-related allowances and time-extensions instituted back during that brief period of time when people cared about other people’s health. I believe “Rule 9” as written here is a typo. “Rule 9” refers to extensions to statutes of limitations (i.e., how long you have to file a lawsuit), whereas “Rule 10” deals with the deadline to bring a civil action to trial. At any rate, while the deadline is normally five years, COVID considerations extended that another six months. This means Billy’s lawsuit, initially filed on April 11, 2019 (the day before the one-year anniversary of TG’s dispute verdict), has to begin trial no later than October 11th of this year. One way or another, this will end.
If you still haven’t seen Veritas Games’ incredible four-hour documentary about the Billy Mitchell case and the evidence proving his fraud, please do so now:
And hopefully, after we’ve all escaped from Los Angeles, those of us who aren’t lying cheaters can finally get back to our little niche gaming utopia, where games are fun, where lies are few, and where everyone always gets along.
I think it sucks that Walter Day has been effectively let off of the hook. It seems he’s as dirty as anyone else in all this and has been in on it from the beginning.
While I won’t praise walter day as grandfather of e-sport, I am kinda glad he bail out … despite what i actually think(he being another washed up old conman). he already bail out years ago first to Pete and finally cashing 200 grands out of TG and spend his life meditating that’s a perfect retirement … whose idea is it to be on parade going to gaming cons involved in making the “evidence package” …. And ended being sued as well…
——
Considering the allegation that Manning Kass and tony works pro bono I must applause their effort LOL usually pro bono lawayers will want hasten stuff but this one delayed the trial over and over and over. Come on this ain’t billion dollar lawsuits … or do they seek publicity as in celebrity lawsuits Then they already got it
——–
God i hate laws technicalities ….
———-
No comment about judge .. This ain’t the case she personally pick after all….
——
Hot sauce part is my favorite part in deposition LOL he can’t answer shit about his own business …. And the long waited the doctor won’t see him parts merely ended as hearsay ….. Ahaha so at least they realize those deposition bad to prove the lost of business profit and ended withdrawing
———
Why Billy need to lie about being a director ? as he said himself it doesn’t matter and I think so too. it won’t matter at all concerning the lawsuit … until he lies about it …. Well Karl do got free monies out of that lie lol
…….
Liz just like every other guy thrown under the bus.
So the plaques donated to random dudes XD I bet they are already thrown in caribbean sea by now
Glad know that there is 5 years time limit soon this will end
Walter Day is the partner in crime with Billy concerning TG, so im a bit disappointed him getting off…..I hope its worth it and he does say what we know is the truth, billy must be sweating now
Got to say reading that review site about the judge does make it sound like this case is going to go on forever and as for Tash
“She is also extremely vindictive and childishly seeks retaliation.”
Most of the reviews say shes not that bright, makes lots of mistakes and lets cases sit for years while at the same time ignores and rejects motions with no reasons given or explained…..sounds familiar
The IVGHF must be the most worthless hall of fame ever.
Decades latter and it’s “cherished gaming memorabilia” is nothing more than scattered debris cluttering up closet and storage spaces.
I suspect the IVGHF was just another self promotional grift.
We already have two new filings, sent to me by a friend of the site:
https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Legal-Billy-vs-TG-2024-01-04-TG-Reply-sanctions.pdf
This is TG’s reply ISO (in support of) the motion for sanctions. Most importantly, Tash makes the case that Billy, Triforce, and Byrum are each awfully silent on the issue of the fake plaques, even though Triforce and Byrum are sending declarations regarding Tash’s conduct. (This is because Billy, Triforce, and Byrum would have to lie about the plaques, and they want to avoid doing that.) Tash points out that Grunwald’s admissible testimony says the plaques are in Florida with Billy, whereas the story that Triforce mailed them back is inadmissible because it’s from a declaration from Kristian Ross, who has no personal knowledge of the events and is just repeating what others told her. Billy’s side also provides exactly zero argument to counter the forensic analysis of the motel plaques photo, or any counter to the testimony that Billy is an IVGHOF director (and would thus have had access to the plaques).
https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Legal-Billy-vs-TG-2024-01-05-Billy-Order-to-show-cause-referral.pdf
It looks like Billy’s side is following through on trying to get a disciplinary referral on Tash. And they love talking about me! We also get to hear more details from Jace’s deposition, and that Tash has reportedly told Jace to change his Signal settings so his messages with Karl no longer auto-delete. You know, important stuff that really sheds light on Billy’s cheated scores.
Eh, this is one that is potentially game ending for TG. Jace/Karl should NOT have been using Signal once the lawsuit started turning its gears.
While it may not technically be spoliation of evidence because of a lack of subpoena or request for discovery in play, ALL communication has to be preserved. Using something that auto-deletes messages, while convenient for privacy, is anathema to you for civil lawsuit purposes because it opens you up to adverse inferences that can torpedo your case.
As for the stuff related to your involvement, that’s hard to judge based on the summary of issues without the depositions being quoted directly. There’s likely enough substance to Ellrod’s claim that unless he’s outright lying, Tash/TG could face more repercussions.
The rule for discovery – be 100% honest, even if it means admitting to a mistake or something that hurts your side. Lying during discovery is the quickest way to lose your lawsuit.
It’ll be interesting to see what Tash’s response on these issues are, as I’m sure Ellrod is tailoring his filing to make it look as bad as possible. But I’m also getting concerned that there are enough issues that Judge Chang might end up being forced to make rulings that cause us to only win in the court of public opinion, not in the courtroom.
I hope Tash doesn’t get punished just for doing his job against scumbags but after reading those reviews I do believe the judge doesn’t know what shes doing, doesn’t read motions and doesn’t understand legal arguments
So yeah she is just the sort of judge to believe Tash is harassing everyone for no reason
It’s nice to know that not everyone is super thrilled with Judge Chang’s handling of this case. That one review tore her up! Lol
Well Muck, if you look at the long list of reviews of Judge Chang, it seems a common theme of letting cases drag on with her not making decisions either way, making mistakes with her lack of experience and not understanding her cases (even after years)
I think it says a lot that the majority of reviews say if Judge Chang is assigned to your case then reapply for another judge
So is it true they settled no trial …. No counter sue as well ? We won’t know the settlement as well …
It is true that there’s a settlement. There will almost certainly be a public statement, but they wouldn’t have that ready yet, since by the sound of things they had come to whatever agreement just prior to the 1/11 hearing. Just be patient. I’m sure Jace knows what he’s doing.
It looks like it is true…..Billy really didn’t want to go to trial as the judge was just going to let it run the distance
Problem is now he’ll return to he usual attitude saying he was the one who come out on top and he got twin galaxies on the ropes to settle
https://www.courthousenews.com/notorious-arcade-gamer-billy-mitchell-settles-suit-over-donkey-kong-world-record/
I suppose we will soon hear a public statement from Billy Mitchell stating how he and the truth of the matter were completely victorious crushing the Twin Galaxies legal team and how “The Mighty Mr. Tash” was reduced to groveling for Billy’s amusement.
This ruling was a great disservice to all the people Billy has victimized and robbed of opportunity the last few decades.
If this is anything less than Mitchell having to f##k off and go home while having to pay TG’s legal fees for this fiasco, then it’s a loss.
Agreed.
lol Why are so many people assuming Billy got a positive settlement? They had to settle the lawsuit AND the countersuit. And things were NOT looking good for Billy in either case.
I can only speak for myself, I’m not assuming anything and will wait to render an opinion on the settlement if/when we find out what the terms are – but I stand by my belief that anything less than Mitchell slinking off into obscurity with no records and having to pay TG’s legal fees is a loss. Unfortunately, I think the judge’s general awfulness and possibly Tash’s conduct might have taken this from a uncontested slam dunk that no one would walk away from to a case that could possibly go either way…and that’s almost a crime unto itself?
Because, given the evidence, Jace should have been able to wipe the courtroom with Billy. I’m with Cap’n Crunch on this, anything less than Billy going home empty handed while having to pay Jaces legal fees for this 3 plus year debacle, than TG lost this case.
We all know how big headed Billy is and we all know he isn’t going to agree to a settlement that wouldn’t benefit him, so I’m a little disappointed and think Billy will be out on social media soon claiming victory
Billy Mitchell=scumbag. you know it, I know it, and now everybody knows it
Jace assure members back then you can reopen dispute thread not by legal means but with new evidence so no way his scores return into database, unless now you can prove arcade can shown mame signatures.
……..
Well I dont want or need to see Billy doomed or whatever, he just need to say the truth and admit wrongdoing in public, thats enough
The terms of the settlement are confidential, but when the reporter approached Billy, he said:
“I don’t know you.”
When the reporter approached Twin Galaxies’s lawyer, he said:
“Everyone’s excited after four years.”
I think we can assume who won and who lost.
Agreed. Thought it was also funny it said the judge was really happy to see the case settled, which gets her a bit out of the spotlight of gamers.
I really wanted to see the trial, seeing Billy be put on the spot in court would have been amazing. But then again, I am not the one fronting years of lawyer cost.
Yeah, wouldn’t it have been interesting to see Billy trying to explain away everything in open court.
The thing about SLAPP lawsuit cases is that they almost never go through and in fact there’s been talk in the past few years of banning them because they only exist to silence whistleblowers and domestic abuse and sex crime victims. Billy Mitchell v Twin Galaxies only went on as long as it did because both parties got fucked over by being stuck with a judge that doesn’t know what she’s doing and thus spends her time just sitting there and doing nothing leading to cases going on for an absurd amount of years. The Billy Mitchell story ends with a man whose career is fucking people over getting fucked over himself by someone so incompetent she did so by accident.
Hahahahaha, that last part is *chef’s kiss*
“This ruling [sic] was a great disservice to all the people Billy has victimized and robbed of opportunity the last few decades.” I agree with this statement by Mathew S. … Still waiting for that public statement from Jace. … Anything less than 1) a public admission of cheating from Mr. Mitchell and 2) a substantial cash settlement from BM to TG, and I would consider it a pretty big loss for TG and a very very big loss for those who have been hurt by Mitchell and were hoping for some closure. … I’ll wait to hear the terms before completely hanging my head in shame though.
You might be surprised, but I like this settlement the more and more I think about it. People are assuming this was TG admitting defeat, when in reality, it was Billy admitting defeat. Just because TG would beat Billy’s lawsuit at trial, which they 100% would have, doesn’t mean they’d get money for it. (Remember, this is the U.S. legal system.) The countersuit is a more complicated beast, and may not have been as simple as we always assumed.
Anyway, I’m waiting for any sort of statement before I put up a post – probably first, a shorter one going over the immediate stuff, then a while later a full long one going over all the deets.
Billy pushing his Cameo on social media today 🙂
Billy Mitchell “Video Game Player”
Hello you absolute sucke-……..er…… I mean legends. This lawsuit drama was a 3 year long dick tease scam so I could profiteer from monitized videos. I will fold like a cheap lawn chair when Billy comes for me.
Thank you for being so gullible and stupid.
I’m gonna leave this comment up, but just in case someone is somehow confused, no, this is not actually Karl.
Want to re read some stuff i bookmarked at the forum dispute pages, turn out TG sealed and hide the threads both the dispute and post …but the scores not back.
Make it as you will but hey this dont looks good
Why would Twin Galaxies want to hide legitimate threads discussing Billy’s cheating?
Unless they’ve agreed to no longer talk about it & not allow others to discuss it too
I agree that doesn’t look good for this settlement…..
That’s not a good look. Hopefully that wasn’t a condition of the settlement or that’s a huge loss. Guess we all have to wait for the announcement from both sides.
TG already had a policy of taking down score disputes of proven cheaters. The Dragster dispute was made private a while back.
Don’t worry about the content. Preservation efforts have been underway. (That’s what I’ve been working on since the settlement was announced.) It’ll all be made public again, independent of TG.
Isn’t there a good chance that the details of the settlement will never be released? I suspect that Billy may of made some confessions in exchange for a settlement in which both parties are not legally allowed to discuss the details of what was reached.
Twin galaxies statement is live. I am in complete disbelief. Scores have been reinstated. Discussion thread has been deleted.
Holy crap….
So Jace is a complete idiot, they settled with Billy even with the mountains of evidence, billy continue to be a bully
what a huge farce
So basically Twin Galaxies gets nothing except to leave the lawsuit, Billy gets exactly what he wants with his scores back on Twin Galaxies website just with “historic” in the title
Billy will now just turn to touring the gaming circuit claiming hes won, great Job Jace you’ve just wasted 4 years of everyones life and achieved nothing
Scores have not been reinstated on the Twin Galaxies leaderboard. They’ve been put back into the historical database, which is a legacy copy of the leaderboards prior to the purchase by the current owners.
Just watched Karl’s video on the settlement. His take, effectively, was that TG might’ve finally run out of money to keep the suit going. He’s obviously spinning it as positive for TG as he can, but I really don’t see the upside for them here other than finally being done with all of this.
The end result is, there’s still no legal precedent for Billy being called out on his lies, and thus Billy can still confidently tour conventions claiming he was completely exonerated, as well as keep suing other people. IMO Karl’s lawsuit has a chance to go the distance because he’ll have a solid shot at getting his legal fees reimbursed if (when) he wins.
I just posted my own update (with a longer one coming later):
https://perfectpacman.com/2024/01/16/surrendered/
Billy’s scores were NOT reinstated. Honestly, I like the settlement, except for the TG statement.