The blowback begins

by ersatz_cats

Welcome back, everyone! I guess it’s time for an update on Karl Jobst’s new defamation lawsuit against conman Billy Mitchell in Florida. Let’s see how things are going so far…

Oh no! Not FELTED!! Not our boy Karl! Wait… is that better or worse than cooked? I need to know.

If you haven’t seen what this is about yet, you will be floored by the absolute nothing burger Billy and/or Junior is on about. But I find the fact they feel it necessary to openly celebrate the tiniest molehill of a “victory” invigorating. As someone who follows sports, it’s like watching the obnoxious opposing fans overly celebrate an opening field goal, when you know deep down what happens to those who talk mad shit about anything in the first quarter.

I’m calling this installment “The blowback begins”, which is one of those double-enchilada thingies. Karl’s new lawsuit is itself blowback for all the character assassination levied against him by Billy Mitchell (not to mention the various online trolls expanding Billy’s audience). But this blowback goes both ways! When I was covering Billy’s California and Australia lawsuits, there was little to no relevant news or commentary media for me to discuss, so I stuck to the court stuff. Few were debasing themselves with advocacy for Billy’s position, because nobody was dumb enough to take Billy Mitchell’s bullshit seriously. But alas, in these few short years, the world we live in has gotten much, much stupider. So now, these mixed media reactions are part of the story. As such, I’ll begin today with a roundup of lawsuit reactions so far. (Yes, I will still finish a full “Fallout roundup part 3”, covering everything prior to these recent events. I had to table it for this.)

Don’t worry though, we also have a few new developments as well. As usual, I do not speak for Karl Jobst. I do, however, speak on behalf of truth, justice, and the American way. And freedom. Definitely the freedom.

ROUND UP

Over on Reddit, you could find a lot of the reactions one might expect:

Like I said, about what you’d expect. Hey, some of it made me laugh. Some folks asked variations of “If Karl’s bankrupt, how can he afford to do this?”, while others asked “Why is he filing pro se?” – two groups in possession of each other’s solution, blindly crossing by each other like ships in the night.

Some of this pro se speculation comes in the form of taunting from Billy’s idiot fans. (I realize there’s a difference between a Billy fan and a Karl hater who dislikes them both, but if you’re openly cheering for Billy to succeed, I will assume you’re a moron.) It’s not hard to find variations of “How could Karl Jobst be so dumb to attempt this without a lawyer?” Stuff like that. As with many other things, Billy’s fans seem to have forgotten this was a hallmark of their very hero.

The most memorable of these was Billy’s big crashout in the e-presence of the masterfully bow-tied Judge Frink. This was the one where Billy showed off his West Point tie, and talked about speaking to “Melanie Griffith”, who it turned out was actually a court clerk named K. Griffiths. That hearing was the termination of Billy’s pro se lawsuit against Twin Galaxies in Florida. His California suit against TG also began self-represented before he suckered Ellrod’s firm into joining. (Pour one out for our old pal James Gibbons, former partner at Manning & Kass, still demoted to “of counsel” somewhere else. Apparently, he’s a “judge pro tem” now, which is Latin for “not a real judge”.)

Billy’s lawsuits against Apollo Legend and the boys at Donkey Kong Forum were also pro se. Each of these self-filed complaints were very lean, much less fleshed out than Karl’s new filing. And even what was there reads like filler. Drawing from the Apollo lawsuit, as you can see from this “Exhibit D” (which was never identified), apparently Broward circuit court and Karl’s federal court use the same broken down photocopier from 1997:

Of course, since Karl once discussed asking an AI what his chances were of winning the Brisbane case – a case which was argued by firm Mills Oakley and was largely out of Karl’s hands – you have a lot of people speculating that this complaint was written by ChatGPT, or that he’s getting all his legal advice from ChatGPT, or that this entire lawsuit was an AI’s idea in the first place.

The operator of YouTube channel “MadAtTheSlop” (who I guess is the same as “Mad at the Internet”) explained starting at 5:20 here that he was convinced the complaint was “written with the assistance of AI” because… it’s too professional?

It is very clinical, very direct, very by-the-books. It establishes all the claims necessary to prevail on a stating-the-claim argument. It… alleges that there’s malice. It basically… is good. And there’s no way that Karl Jobst, an Australian, would have any fucking ability to file something like this without the assistance of AI.

“Everyone knows Karl is a moron, and since he’s a known moron, if he does something that looks non-moron, there must be a conspiracy, therefore AI.”

This whole “Karl used AI” rabbit hole was weird. People extrapolated that Karl must have gotten “legal advice” from AI on the previous case (which wasn’t true), and then this was justified by basically saying “Well, all lawyers probably use AI at one point or another”:

This is society now. There’s no going back.

And of course, you still have the same frothing, unhinged Karl-haters, making shit up because they know deep down their nonsense can only be justified with lies.

Karl, how dare you commit iMDB! I’m curious what this person means by “repeatedly lying and throwing false accusations” at Billy. Sure, Billy swindled a judge in Brisbane to sign off on one claim, so while I disagree with that conclusion, I guess academically you can cite that at least. But what other lies or “false accusations” about Billy are there? Cheating at Donkey Kong? Billy’s perjury? Don’t tell me this is about Billy standing on things.

I wasn’t the only one to notice that a lot of people who didn’t seem to understand this new lawsuit at all had very strong opinions on it nonetheless. Pondering these reactions during my commute to work, my mind was drawn to the many angry people I’ve encountered this past year who blame Karl for not discussing his Brisbane lawsuit more openly. That argument has only flown because most Australian court paperwork is inaccessible, thus there’s a built-in excuse for anyone who didn’t know. And yet, you give people this new lawsuit filing freely, and many of them still won’t avail themselves of it.

On that note, there was a common sentiment that Karl is destined to lose on Count II – the one where Billy said Karl fraudulently obtained $200,000 from his personal GoFundMe campaign. After all, everyone everywhere thinks Karl misled them, and they all can’t be wrong… can they?

“I’m assuming”? Read it!! OMG YOUR NAME IS FUCKING “BOOKWORM”!!

We’ve discussed this here before, and I’m not going to relitigate it all today. But people have this weird idea that, since “everyone knows Karl misled everyone about his GoFundMe” (even though he didn’t), that will somehow translate directly into court evidence. How will this happen? I don’t know! Will they call the Internet up to the stand, person by person, one at a time? Will one witness testify “Nah, everyone agrees Karl misled them”? Wouldn’t that merit a hearsay objection?

People often make a point to distinguish the court of law from the court of public opinion, usually making a point to say the conclusion of a judge or jury has more weight than the opinions of us randos following the news. But – even if one chooses to buy into this valuation – this is literally the kind of thing that separates the two. I hate to break it to you all, but YOU are the court of public opinion. It doesn’t matter how many of you think Karl misled you. In actual-court, they’re going to comb through the facts, they’re going to weigh the GoFundMe text and Karl’s announcements, they’re not going to get caught up in personality dramas between people they don’t know, and (I believe) they will find that Blonde Australia YouTube guy did not meaningfully mislead anyone about the legal threats he received from Black Suit Flag Tie Man.

Now to be clear, I don’t necessarily share this valuation of one venue over the other. I think there are things the court of law gets correct, and I think there are things the court of public opinion gets correct. The key is that evidence in law-court is curated, which sometimes serves purposes of truth and justice, but sometimes serves to blind juries to important context they should be allowed to consider. Hey, no system’s perfect. At the Brisbane trial, I sat and watched as Karl’s side was not allowed to submit key evidence showing Karl did indeed have sources indicating a financial payout from Apollo Legend. The argument should have been that, although that claim turned out to be incorrect, Karl had ample reason to believe it at the time he made it. Meanwhile, Karl’s attorneys didn’t even attempt to argue that people were blaming Billy for Apollo’s death as soon as it happened – something I can demonstrate readily here in the real world. This allowed Billy’s attorneys to falsely paint a portrait where all such inferences were directly attributable to Karl’s video on the topic months later. I can’t say whether this failure was due to rules of evidence rather than poor lawyering, but I can grant that it would have been complicated for them to enter into evidence that which I can just show you with a single hyperlink. And I’d say both of these blind spots had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial.

The point here is, even if you disagree with me, even if you remain convinced that Karl misled everyone and that everybody on the Internet is in agreement on that point, that’s not going to directly translate into a legal conclusion, nor does it mean Billy gets a pass for fanning the flames. Now, I don’t necessarily blame randos on r/youtubedrama for not knowing or considering these distinctions. Actual lawyers on the other hand…

But we’ll get to that in a moment. The news was not all bad. Buried in those Reddit threads, I found what I believed to be a couple well-considered observations:

Granted, the speculation about the statute of limitations was not true; in Florida, Karl has two years to file. But it’s good that this possibility was on this person’s mind at least. There’s also confusion about whether Karl would be liable for Billy’s legal fees at all; unless Karl appeals a given ruling, my understanding is that the answer should be “No” even if the case is promptly tossed out, which it will not be. I’m also not sure why folks assume Karl intends “to win a defamation lawsuit” without ever bringing an attorney on the case, which he can do at any time (at great savings if the preliminary work is completed pro se). But fundamentally, I agree that this strategy looks like a win-win all around.

Meanwhile on Twitter, Junior didn’t wait long to begin his campaign of indirect references to impending victory:

I didn’t catch until I reviewed Kotaku’s coverage that this is a Kiwi Farms reference. Apparently, in their 2025 “Lolcow of the Year” awards, Billy won “Best Supporting Actor”, while Karl was given the title “Fresh Meat”. I figured I should clarify the reference, just in case you cared about the opinions of gibbering morons.

While this is obviously an acknowledgment of news of the new lawsuit, as of my writing, it does not appear that Billy has been served yet. (The “Summons” posted on April 30th doesn’t count.) So until that happens, Junior knows he can tweet obliquely about Karl or related themes, with the ultimate fallback position that you can’t prove he was talking about the new lawsuit. (Another example of something obvious to the court of public opinion which can be tricky for the court of law.) Junior took this opportunity to continue running his mouth, with all the creativity one would expect:

Uhhhh, takes one to know one?

MAKING MORE ROUNDS

Speaking of fresh meat, the news of Karl versus Billy round 2 was pounced on by some slop drama YouTubers as if they aren’t already a bunch of overly-fed dairy cows. (I’m assuming cows are fed well, I don’t know, I’m not a farmist.) Some of these clowns have grown quite fond of Billy, which is ironic, given it was his proclivity for suing people on the Internet for criticizing him that ultimately endeared him to them. This all seems very strange, until you remember that manipulating people has been Billy’s one true talent all along.

Professional noise-maker Smash JT was quick to give his dumbass opinion. He spent much of his time concentrated on side stuff, like the “Cry baby” discount code, declaring “You’re not allowed to call someone a baby about something? That’s now defamation?” (No one’s arguing that it is.) JT chooses to focus on stuff like that, rather than the depiction of Billy hanging Karl to death taking up most of his screen. He advises Karl to sue Redditors over false bankruptcy claims rather than suing Billy for reposting them, while failing to grasp that Billy’s problem is he knows for sure that the claims are untrue. At about 9:10, JT displays his lack of understanding of proof standards, while laughingly entertaining wholly made-up doom scenarios for Karl:

And now, if Karl Jobst is to use this one statement as the premise for his lawsuit, he’s going to… They’re gonna need to fight on the activity that took place, and prove within a shadow of a doubt that nothing illegal took place for everything they did, that it was completely all above board. Which it may have been. But how much money and time is it gonna take to argue that? And what if, oh by the way, while you’re arguing it, it turns out something you did was actually super-illegal? [laughs] Like… Wouldn’t that be ironic? Holy shit. Like, do you really wanna go down this road?

Yes, this is a bad move, because Karl may have done something he didn’t do, and people will discover the thing that’s impossible to discover about the thing he didn’t do.

JT does disclose his hot sauce collaboration with Billy, who he describes as a “straight shooter”, “very down to Earth”, and “an absolute pleasure to deal with”. Indeed, JT pauses his review of the filing to show off a bottle of “Vendetta Sauce” featuring him and his signature. I would invoke the famous Upton Sinclair quote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”, but I feel like that gives JT far too much credit.

Anyway, in his conclusion at about 12:45, Smash takes a page from his hero and says “generally” when he means “genuinely”. Or at least, it sure sounds to me like that’s what he said. I’ll let you decide. At any rate, here’s what he attempted to say:

I [genuinely] hope Karl Jobst loses this, because ain’t no way I want to see this kind of shit passing in America. Cuz if people can sue for “Oh, this person said mean things to me on the Internet”, the same shit Alyssa’s suing me for, that’s a very scary precedent to set.

False accusations of crimes become “said mean things”. Yes, terrifying precedent.

Okay, Smash JT is just a knucklehead. But what would an actual lawyer have to say about this?

This was the first reaction from “Legal Mindset”, a lawyer who is at least friendly with Billy. Remember, this is the guy whose retweet was featured in the complaint. Mindset’s remarks perked my ears a bit, as I understand “interesting” to be lawyer-speak for “has merit”, which itself is lawyer-speak for “Uh-oh, someone’s in trouble”.

But his tune changed when it came time to do a long stream reviewing the complaint. He opens by declaring that Karl “obviously” did not consult with any Florida attorney, because he’s self-represented, and because the filing looks “ugly” to him (at about 12:00):

You can kinda tell when you see these documents often, that they are filed pro se just by the fact that they’re kind of… they’re kinda ugly. Right? Usually if you have a law firm filing them, they’re like a little bit cleaner and neat, but it’s kind of a… a very simple, ugly complaint.

When he says it’s “ugly”, I hope he means formulaically, and not that the court scan of the paperwork looks dingy. Look man, I’ve seen some ugly shit from real attorneys. I’m curious to hear specifics of what he means here. It’s “simple” rather than “neat”?

Soon afterward, Mindset displays a massive misunderstanding of the case:

One thing here about defamation is you have to have a reputation to ruin. So if your reputation is already in the dirt, if your reputation is already… you know, tarnished, right, you can’t really… have any damages, right? So… One thing that’s always funny with people that have become lolcows is that their reputation may be so bad that they can’t actually claim defamation. I’m not saying that Karl Jobst is there, but he might be. He might be, right?

Except Karl is filing the claim as “defamation per se”, so he doesn’t have to prove damages.

Does Legal Mindset not know what “defamation per se” means?

Look, he’s the lawyer, not me. But for my first write-up, I poked around and found a few sources confirming the same thing. Here’s just one example:

When a statement is considered defamatory “per se” there is a legal presumption that the false statement caused harm to the reputation of the plaintiff and, thus, the plaintiff will not need to prove “actual damages” to prevail. A plaintiff will be able to satisfy the fifth element of a defamation claim with no more than the statement itself. This legal presumption of harm relieves a defamation plaintiff of a significant burden – proving that one or more persons who read or heard the false statement believed it to be true and that, as a result of the same, the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged.

And Mr. Mindset does read the words “defamation per se” aloud as he begins his review, so the terms of Karl’s legal claims did not escape him.

Legal Mindset presents himself as a neutral party with no interest in whether the case goes this way or that. And yet, he spends all of his time belittling Karl and failing to – I would go so far as to say, not attempting to – grasp the fundamentals of what’s being alleged. Remember, the bankruptcy trustee told Billy multiple times that there was no evidence of illegal activity by Karl, while asking for any such evidence. Billy refused to provide anything, and instead continued accusing Karl of criminal activity. So there’s your proof of knowledge of falsity. At about 38:20, Mindset twists all this into a Bavarian pretzel:

So, not responding to the bankruptcy officer doesn’t make him guilty of defamation. None of this is proving defamation. And… What it is, it’s like Jobst trying to force defamation where there isn’t… in that instance, or an obligation on Mitchell to prove something. Whereas, in this, because the standard is actual malice, right, you’ve gotta prove that Mitchell knew the truth and acted with a substantial disregard for it. It’s on the other foot, right? You’ve gotta provide this evidence to him to show “Okay, there’s nothing there” and then see what he says going… going forward, right? So it’s really backwards in that assessment.

“You’ve gotta provide this evidence to him”? How else does this need to be explained to you? Of course it feels backwards when you describe everything backwards.

Let’s see if you catch this oversight, as heard at about 33:50:

The crazy thing to me is, he is suing over the discount codes. Not use of Jobst’s face. It’s not like his face is plastered on the bottle, or he’s using like his image in marketing materials, whatever. He’s using references, like really trolly memey references in discount codes. And that is what he’s mad about for unauthorized use of name or likeness. The weakest case ever. Ever. For unauthorized use of name or likeness.

Bro…

Throughout the stream, Mindset is obsessed with the idea that Karl conjured this lawsuit through AI, focusing on what I find to be rather benign legal text. I might give Mindset more deference if he himself wasn’t so willfully misunderstanding Karl’s case – that Billy accused him of specific crimes which Billy either had reason to doubt or in some cases had direct knowledge of falsity. As an example, at about 55:20, Mindset focuses in on Karl’s use of the word “impute” in passage 40:

Mindset’s argument is that it’s possible for someone to “scam” or “deceive” through a fundraiser without it being a literal crime, and thus it’s a logical leap to say such statements “impute” accusation of a crime. Okay, except… That’s how all legal complaints read? In the history of ever? Karl’s there to make his case, not Billy’s case. I happen to understand and agree with Karl’s interpretation, but even if I didn’t, that doesn’t mean anything is weird here. And he goes back to this “ChatGPT” theory often. Legal Mindset is a man with a “That’s AI” hammer, and he’s seeing nails everywhere.

I would kindly remind everyone that it is literally Karl’s profession to write compelling scripts for videos, something he’s been doing since well before the generative AI boom. Obviously videos and court filings are not a one-to-one translation, but the core skill has always been there. It’s like these guys want to believe Karl gave no thought whatsoever to this project he obviously did a bunch of work on, and that their two-second observations will be mind-blowing revelations to him.

Mindset maintains his position that the words “scam” and “deception” are not defamatory, although he is forced to admit that Billy’s use of the word “fraudulently” is “a little bit more dangerous”. As he’s concluding, he drops this insight, at about 1:14:20:

Here’s another thing, too, which Jobst doesn’t realize. This opens up his finances yet again to scrutiny. So he’s gonna have to have all of his finances laid bare again, everything gone through, all over again. That’s not fun. And that’s a lot of work. It’s a pain in the butt.

First of all, this calls back to Mindset’s blind spot on “defamation per se”. Since Karl would not have to prove damages, I’m not sure any of this is actually true. Karl may not have to open up any financial books at all. But for the sake of argument, let’s say he will have to. Does Legal Mindset really believe Karl has not considered his own legal obligations? Karl just went through a lawsuit of his own for years, and covered a bunch of Billy’s other lawsuits against Twin Galaxies, David Race, and Donkey Kong Forum, reporting on all their deposition discoveries. Do you really believe Karl has literally no idea what he’s doing?

As a cherry on top of this shit sundae, Tim Sczerby showed up in Mindset’s chat to complain about King of Kong for the undecillionth time lmao:

I can’t escape the notion that Legal Mindset is a bit personally triggered by this lawsuit, and his inclusion in it. Recall his tweet, reposted by Billy, included as Exhibit 43:

It doesn’t seem anything ever came of this, so I guess they never found anything actionable. But who cares? The purpose of this inclusion, as stated in the filing, was to show Billy’s advocacy of harm to Karl’s livelihood, as part of “Mitchell’s malice and pattern of conduct”. I’ll leave it to the experts to determine the viability or relevance of all this. The point is, this inclusion is about Billy, and what statements he’s endorsing, and not about Legal Mindset or his Australian lawyer buddy.

And yet in both the long stream and a shorter summary video (at about 9:20), Legal Mindset takes this very personally:

Once again, real research by actual lawyers, not ChatGPT, not using AI, right? We were just looking into that, and we came up with some possibilities. This is totally permissible. You’re allowed to do legal research. That should not harm your income. If lawyers doing legal research, my colleague being an Australian lawyer, doing some legal research is going to tank you, then you probably aren’t doing something legal, or there’s probably something wrong with you and your operations if people doing legal research is going to cripple you, right?

None of this makes a God damn lick of sense.

FROM BAD TO WORSE

Let’s switch over to the blogosphere for a moment. Here’s some written coverage from Kim Wincen (he/him), a law student in New Zealand. Let’s get one thing out of the way first. He doesn’t seem to like me. That’s fine. I don’t require that of him. I do find his remarks amusing on some level, though.

Hmmm… How do you know it’s a “very normal blog entry”? Did you read it? I hope you did. You are commenting on its contents, after all. Hey, maybe Ken Barlow is the most gullible man to ever walk the Earth, in which case, yes it would be normal and appropriate of me to report such a fact to the public.

Just to be clear, I don’t give a shit if people take shots at me. Hell, if they’re funny or clever, they make me laugh! Kim here didn’t put much effort into his zingers, though. That’s fine. I’m not entitled to anything. All I require is that folks reckon with the facts, and read the material they’re referencing.

I will confess that on first pass, even though I disagreed with the conclusions, I thought this blog wasn’t that bad. You cannot escape that Wincen obviously did not do even one solitary, cursory proofreading pass on anything he wrote. Hey, listen… All I’m saying is, paralegals exist for a reason. Being a sloppy writer doesn’t make him wrong. If you set that failure aside and read what he’s trying to say, it does exude an air of being somewhat earnest and considerate. He dives into legal statutes, and he doesn’t fall into obvious traps like these other bozos, such as thinking Karl will have to prove damages on defamation per se (except perhaps as a question of jurisdiction). He thought Karl’s claim relating to “serious illegal activity” was the strongest, referring to it as “the most interesting” of the counts. (There’s that word again.) Otherwise, Mr. Wincen didn’t hold out much esteem for Karl’s lawsuit overall. Okay. He and I are allowed to disagree.

However… then you look a little closer…

Wait… What!?

“[G]ave it to [a] professional witness as payment for services”?

What?

The fuck?

Are you talking about?

OHHHHH… He thinks Karl raised that $50,000 to pay David Race to testify in the Brisbane trial?

That’s funny. If Kim Wincen had read my “normal” summary, the one I know he saw, which I so helpfully and in good faith provided to him free of charge, he would understand that David Race had been sued by Billy Mitchell, and that the fundraiser was for David’s legal defense in that lawsuit. Afterward, David voluntarily testified in Karl’s trial. At no point has anyone ever claimed that David was a paid “professional witness”. I’m not sure David has any relevant expertise as a “professional witness”, unless the case is about how to slam out a perfect score of Pac-Man on command.

Look, I get it. It’s not easy to read my shit when it’s all so super-long. I sympathize. Although in Wincen’s case…

And this wasn’t the only indicator. Kim doesn’t avail himself of links I provided to the deleted Reddit post and to one of Billy’s unlisted streams – both the stream itself and clips from it – instead remarking “This steam isn’t publicly available any more” (emphasis mine).

I don’t care if someone just doesn’t know my blog exists. That’s fine. I’m not a central figure here. But this guy is right there, on my page, having a big laugh at my headlines, before walking into this like Sideshow Bob stepping on a rake. I tried to warn you! I’m so tempted to start awarding some kind of “I can’t make you read” award. Maybe one day.

Even setting aside that Mr. Wincen skipped the homework assignment, he feels the need to downplay what Billy said. The “took from you” quote he laughingly dismissed above… Well, technically Billy didn’t say those words in that sequence. The closest from Billy you can find, even stripped of all context, actually reads as follows:

Okay. He deceptively took $500,000 from you, each one of you people…

Or maybe Kim meant this quote:

The guy who took over half a million dollars fraudulently from his listeners.

Or was it this one:

He took over half a million dollars of people’s money, okay, based upon… Let me be kind… based upon the falsehood. Yes, he took over half a million dollars. I mean… some people argue that you should go to jail for doing something like that.

“I mean you did take the money Karl, that’s how it works.”

Sure, bud. Wincen also seems mixed up on proof standards. At one point, he correctly notes that “the plaintiff must prove the defendant” was “communicating something that was factually untrue”. In other words, Karl needs to prove what Billy said was false. And yet, a moment later Wincen forgets this, and has the burden of proof all backwards:

To compensate for this, Karl seems to be going out of his way to prove he did nothing illegal by showing his correspondence with his trustee etc. This again, misunderstands how it works – Karl just needs to show Billy said it and then it’s on Billy to provide evidence of the wrong doing.

Look, you’re the law… student… guy. But I’m going to believe Karl knows what he’s doing on this one.

I swear, we’re almost through this idiot swamp. But I’m afraid our final boss yet awaits. I do have to encourage you all to don your stupidity safety goggles for what’s coming next.

I haven’t really discussed Tony Guo on this blog. Tony runs the ironically named YouTube channel “Law Understood Simply”, or “LUS” to their friends. The honest truth is, this is because I don’t like to discuss the content of someone’s media without reviewing the totality of their relevant work, to make sure I’m not missing important context. And LUS churns out so much fucking content, even just on Karl Jobst, that I literally cannot watch it all. I once cued up my locally saved copies and saw the outrageous total runtime and I was like “Fuck that, I have other things to do”. That said, I have caught the occasional video before, and I am very unimpressed. LUS misses obvious stuff, and more dangerously, they just make shit up, pulled right from their anus like undigested corn. Karl showed examples of this in his “Final Lawsuit Update” video, and today we’ll see more.

For this write-up, as a representative example of LUS’ work, I decided to review this stream titled “Karl Jobst Sues Billy Mitchell for Defamation Without Lawyer is Comedy”. (Yes, that is the title.)

Throughout this hour-and-a-half-long stream, LUS is obsessed with the poor quality court scan of Karl’s paperwork. Like, that’s almost all they can talk about. At about 5:40, as seen above, LUS reads off the likes and bookmarks from one Twitter screenshot, and pretends to have no idea what’s going on:

So again, you look at this stuff, and it just doesn’t really make sense to me. Like… Like, it’s not clear, you can’t read the numbers, the 370, the 16, the date and timestamp. You can’t even read this. This is the Rickey’s hot sauce sale, right? So like, what is going on here, with… with this image, like you know… Like, why is it so unclear?

It’s a God damned Twitter post. I swear. What do you care how many likes and bookmarks it has?

Over, and over, and over LUS goes back to this. They’re utterly confounded how Karl could have ever thought it was a good idea to submit a filing that looks like this. LUS frequently says everything looks like it’s redacted, calling it poor “presentation”. At one point, they ask if this is a stylistic choice. Later, they laugh imagining a judge printing off these dark scans on their home computer, which… I’m not sure that’s how judges review paperwork? At about 42:30, LUS flicks through captioned screenshots from Billy’s streams, and begins laughing uncontrollably:

Look at this. What is this stuff? Like… It’s such a bizarre, like… Like what is go… Obviously… I mean, c’mon, guys. What what is going on here? Like, I… I have no idea, like why anyone in their God-given mind would submit something like this. And then he submitted the Donkey… the Donkey Kong, so he knows… What is the purpose of this, Karl? You know, like… Holy moly. Look at the… Look at Billy Mitchell. Let’s zoom in. Look at this! What is this? What is this? You know, like… like… What is going on?

Hey LUS…

Tony…

What if I told you…

Karl obviously did not submit dark monochrome scans with illegible text. Why would you even assume that? Why would you not entertain even the most obvious of alternative explanations?

It’s fair to assume Karl submitted full-color paperwork, and the court mangled it with their stone age photocopier. I can’t say for certain what happens to the full color version. I would hope it becomes the bench copy (for the judge). Certainly, if it is found that the court’s own scanning process is hamstringing Karl’s ability to submit evidence and argue his case, that ought to be grounds to allow electronic filing or some such. But I’m willing to believe that won’t be an issue. It’s not like this is the first case this courthouse has ever had to handle.

If you want to have a laugh at Karl’s paperwork misfortune, I’m certainly not going to step in the way of your fun. Some of that scan legitimately is nightmare fuel, lolololol. But LUS does not seriously entertain any theory beyond (to paraphrase) “Karl threw some all-black illegible scans in his paperwork, didn’t look twice at them, and called it a day.” LUS is like Zoolander from that one scene: “What is this? A center for ants?”

At around 40:00, LUS offers to find Karl some low-cost attorneys who would work for only $100-$200 an hour. You know, just a few thousand bucks Karl probably doesn’t have. Then a moment later, LUS ups the ante and offers to represent Karl themself:

Look, I… I would represent Karl out of mercy. So the judge… We would have… The first thing I would tell Karl is, we’re gonna ask for a do-over, okay? We are going to ask for a do-over. We’re going to, you know, make sure the files are submitted properly.

Buddy.

As you should know, it’s called an “amended complaint”. To my understanding, you don’t even have to ask the first time.

I swear, LUS is Lionel Hutz.

LUS seems to prefer the legal strategy of ignoring the text of these screenshots, or the arguments being made, and focusing on the pretty pictures, as if they’re central. They scroll through Karl’s captioned screenshots, calling them “multiple pictures of the same man”. At about 1:02:40, LUS does the same thing with Karl’s gallery documenting Billy’s ongoing promotion of that Karl-as-a-lobster print:

Karl has decided one picture of him as a lobster wasn’t enough. He had to show four different pictures… one… two… three… four different pictures of him as a lobster to make his point. Right, like… What is going on here, right?

This is an embarrassing amount of effort to avoid reviewing the lawsuit’s claims, or the evidence in that context. At about 58:30, LUS comes across the image of Karl we saw a moment ago – the one Legal Mindset pretended didn’t exist. So what deep legal observations does LUS have in store for this, and the legal claim it supports?

C’mon, man. C’mon, like… Look look look, I… I get it. You wanna submit some funny images of Donald Trump and… Billy Mitchell, cuz you want, you know, him to look bad. But why do you submit some images of yourself, man?

Why does he submit images of himself?

I dunno, maybe fucking read the complaint. Maybe that’ll tell you.

This clown is a lawyer? This is a law channel?

At about 47:30, LUS is blindsided by attorney communications they’ve clearly never seen before. This includes a missive from Billy’s first attorneys, asking why Karl is crowdfunding based on the threat of a second lawsuit. A moment later, LUS muses that Karl has been hoping to keep this hidden:

This is very, very relevant. Like, a lot of this stuff hurts Karl’s story. I think Karl is just assuming no one’s going to look at it. But you have an email here from Billy Mitchell’s attorney saying, Karl, there is no second defamation claim, you know there’s no second defamation claim, why are you crowdfunding based on the basis of a second defamation claim? I didn’t… Nobody knows this exists but Karl! And… And probably Billy of course.

Here’s a comprehensive list of everyone who already knew this communication existed:

• Karl Jobst;
• Karl’s attorneys;
• Billy Mitchell;
• Billy’s attorneys;
• Everyone who watched Karl’s major “Final Lawsuit Update” video last August.

This whole exchange was highlighted and discussed in detail, conveniently right at the one-hour mark. You could not miss it. If it was a snake, it would’ve bit you. If it was a low overpass, you would’ve driven your RV right into it. It was inexorable.

Equally unavoidable was Karl’s explanation, both in that video and in this very complaint, for why this missive misrepresents the fact of a second unfiled defamation complaint. But it seems LUS successfully did avoid having to watch or read anything.

This wasn’t a one-off, either. At about 27:20 in “Final Lawsuit Update”, Karl shows much of his settlement offer to Billy. But at 14:20 in LUS’ stream, this is all news to them!

Why would Karl, publicly publish all his bankruptcy documents? Like, I don’t understand. It’s over, Karl. You filed for bankruptcy. Billy won. Just don’t… Just leave it alone. What Karl has done is, he’s actually shown more information than we’ve ever gotten before. So like, again, this is more information than I think Karl wants to make public.

But of course, that “Accounting and YouTube” guy pops into chat, saying he’ll take a look at it. Maybe this is all news to him as well.

And like I said, LUS makes shit up out of thin air. At 23:10, they claim Judge Barlow had a special hearing to tell Karl his lawyers were milking him. Where did LUS get this from? At 27:50, they say Karl has been very public about spending 1.1 million dollars on attorneys. I don’t think Karl ever said that. I’d like a source, at least. I’m telling you – and this is why I had you all don the stupidity goggles – watching LUS and taking them seriously only makes you dumber.

LUS clipped together a shorter summary of this stream, in a video they titled “The Worst Lawsuit I Have Ever Seen”. Honestly, if LUS thinks this is the worst lawsuit they’ve ever seen, that should mean Karl will win decisively.

WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT GETS WORSE?

Keep those goggles handy, because we are not quite done. We have another even more outrageous sloptuber to discuss. An unparalleled assclown. An unmitigated fecalstorian. A heretofore unrivaled purveyor of the most stupefying and vomit-inducing takes ever conceived into this innocent world. Some might say, the very shitstain of the Internet itself.

This is the channel Quintheo.

Hahaha, PSYCH!!! I’m just fucking with you. C’mon folks, you had to know something was up when I suggested literally anyone was going to be worse than LUS.

No no, Quintheo’s fine. I was pleasantly surprised. Previously, I was unimpressed with a video he did after the judgment a year ago titled “Karl Jobst is Being a Sore Loser”, and so I had it in my mind that he’s just another idiot drama farmer piling on the popular narrative.

But when he made a video on this new lawsuit, I gave him another chance as I do, and he won me back. I don’t agree with everything he says, but unlike these failed lawyers who spent an hour staring at their screens going “Hurr hurr hurr This is stooopid Why are there pictures Why is this here I can’t read”, Quinthy at least reckons with the facts, and attempts to understand and process Karl’s case as it’s being argued. He also, in an unprecedented act of grace, recognizes that the pdf for download is just a poor photocopy of Karl’s actual filing, which by itself puts him ahead of our pal Tony Zoolander. He fairly makes fun of the “analog horror backrooms monster” quality of the scan, but he makes a point to read the text justifying the given exhibit.

Quintheo acknowledges the most basic foundation of Karl’s defamation claims – that this is about allegations of criminality that Billy knew were false. He walks through the written narrative, outlining what Billy knew and said at what times. At about 7:30, he ponders what Billy’s defense for the “serious illegal activity” claim might be:

I can already see the argument on Billy Mitchell’s side being like “No, there was other illegal stuff, not just that.” But he doesn’t really mention any other… or reference, like what we saw earlier with the plot thickening […] and linking to the Reddit post, but I would assume that’s what he would try to do.

Quintheo also did what Smash JT should have done: He brought up the actual text of Karl’s GoFundMe, and pointed out that nothing therein was a lie in any way. Trying to take a legal perspective, he acknowledges that many people feel misled, but says “Everything in this description completely contradicts this idea that [Karl] was scamming people.” He also walks through why Karl was correct to anticipate a second lawsuit, something LUS will only lie to you about.

Quintheo acknowledges he’s not a lawyer and can’t speak from that perspective, and that he’s not a fan of Karl or Billy, but as someone who can read, he can see Karl may have a case:

For me personally, I can see that there might be some actual legitimacy to Karl’s claims, but don’t get me wrong, he’s kind of lost a bit of grace with… with his fans […] or with just the public in general.

If you want level-headed analysis but would rather get it from an actual attorney (albeit an Australian one), I’d recommend this video from channel Aussie Overlaw’d. (Based on the following analysis, I’m guessing this is not the same “Aussie” referred to by Legal Mindset.) He does immediately start on an odd foot, identifying “both parties” as having “a litigious nature”. I guess when you get sued for years by Mr. Lawsuits Everywhere Man, and receive three other direct lawsuit threats from that same guy, while being the subject of vague litigation warnings from the charity fraud family, and then after all that you finally clap back a single solitary time with a civil claim of your own, I guess that can give you a reputation for a “litigious nature”. Sure.

But AO’s video was very matter-of-fact, walking through the complaint and explaining the claims. At about 9:20, he remarks:

This is a pro se filing, meaning Jobst has written this, filed it himself from Australia without a solicitor on record in the U.S. proceeding. That’s not nothing. A 26-page federal complaint is not a casual exercise. And the level of documentary detail in it – trustee correspondence, solicitor emails, video timestamps, court testimony reference – in my opinion suggests someone who has been keeping meticulous records. Whether or not that’s going to lead him over the line, I don’t know.

Later, at 10:20, Aussie highlights the significance of Karl’s evidence:

But here’s what strikes me in all of this. And I want to be clear that none of this has been tested in court yet. Mitchell hasn’t responded, and we’re working from one side of the pleadings. But the trustee’s clearance is a document of fact. A government-appointed officer investigated, reported no offence, and then allegedly had contact with Mitchell’s own lawyers, asking for substantiation of his public claims. That’s not nothing. If legitimate, that’s the kind of contemporaneous documentary record that becomes very significant in a defamation case built around alleged knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

When someone is accused of continually making allegations of serious criminal conduct, after purportedly receiving an official report saying the opposite, and after being asked by the relevant officer to substantiate these allegations and declining to do so, the question of what they knew and when becomes unavoidable. Whether the Florida court will treat these statements as protected opinion, as hyperbole, as commentary on a public dispute, or as actionable defamatory falsehoods, that’s a legal question that will take months or years to answer. But the structure of the complaint is clearly designed to walk the court through a very specific timeline of “Here’s what Mitchell said, here’s the evidence shown at the time, and here’s why those two things don’t line up.”

Aussie doesn’t offer an express conclusion on Karl’s chances for success. Rather, he seems more interested in discussing broader legal questions a case like this can raise. That’s fine, that’s what a law channel is supposed to do. But I think you can read between the lines.

DEUS EX ELECTRONICA

Okay, this brings us into newer developments. On April 13th, Karl filed a motion for “leave” (permission) to submit further filings electronically. And Karl supplemented that motion on April 24th. You can find both of those filings here:

https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Legal-Karl-vs-Billy-2026-04-13-Karl-Motion-for-leave-CM_ECF.pdf

https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Legal-Karl-vs-Billy-2026-04-24-Karl-Supplement-to-motion-CM_ECF.pdf

Note that I’d prefer not to publish people’s personal info, but I’m not interested in trying to edit it out of these pdfs, and they’re available unredacted from the CourtListener website anyway. Curiously, these were both scanned along with their mailing envelopes, giving us all an indication of how Karl Jobst in Australia was filing this lawsuit at a courthouse in Florida:

Carlos! My man!

If you’re new to this whole saga, I don’t have time to go into the whole back story between Carlos Pineiro and Billy Mitchell here, but Carlos is one of many people who has been seriously wronged by Billy after initially trying to help Billy in good faith. I can imagine Carlos hand-delivered Karl’s complaint to the courthouse (without an envelope to scan) with a big beaming smile on his face.

Right away, the initial motion from Karl is lean. The supplement fleshes out a legal basis for granting ECM (electronic filing) access. Going forward, Karl should have all this assembled the first time, so supplements are not relied upon except to address points raised by the opposition. Pro se mistakes. That’s fine. I’ve represented myself. I’ve been there.

Karl’s argument is that his global distance from the court will result in unreasonable delays, which will likely put him up against deadlines, “materially impairing [his] ability to prepare and submit filings”. He also notes his bankruptcy makes the cost of expedited shipping “a substantial burden”. Amusingly, Karl also indirectly acknowledges the role the court’s dogshit scans play in this motion:

Granting Plaintiff leave to file electronically will promote the efficient administration of this case and facilitate timely and accurate filings, including the submission of clear, native PDF documents.

While the original complaint was light on legal citations, for this motion Karl pulls out two pieces of case law to justify his request:

Yes, you jokers, those are two real cases and not AI. Worth noting is that the motion in Peters was denied. (I was unable to find the actual ruling in Huminski.) Karl used these to illustrate the standard being applied in those cases – a standard which he argued he satisfied.

A few days later, on April 27th, Judge Shaw-Wilder denied Karl’s motion with a brief order:

PAPERLESS ORDER denying ECF No. 4 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Use CM/ECF. The Southern District of Florida does not permit pro se litigants to use CM/ECF to file documents. See CM/ECF NextGen Administrative Procedures, Southern District of Florida, p. 6 (requiring pro se plaintiffs to file their documents in the conventional manner). If Plaintiff is interested in receiving electronic notices, he must file the form “Consent by Pro Se Litigants (Non-Prisoner) to Receive Notice of Electronic Filing,” which can be found on the Court’s website.

Despite the certainty of this phrasing, I suspect Shaw-Wilder is likely entitled to grant access in extraordinary circumstances. She decided Karl’s situation did not merit a bending of the rules, as is her right.

Longtime readers of this site know that my most defining feature is the deep admiration and respect I have for all judges everywhere, and the high esteem in which I place their noble profession. It’s really what I’m most known for, honestly. People know to come here for routine updates on how awesome judges are, occasionally interrupted by reports on whatever that Billy Mitchell guy is doing, which really I only throw in to break the judiciary-affirmation monotony. However, this is a rare case where these two interests of mine intersect.

I think Shaw-Wilder was correct to deny Karl’s motion for ECM access. I genuinely do. I’m not speaking to the legal precedent itself. I trust her on that. And who knows, I guess this could be a sign she’s already unimpressed by this foreign pro se litigant. Or maybe that has nothing to do with it. There’s no way to know that at this time.

But the reason she was correct, in my eyes, is because the motion was one-sided. Billy hasn’t been served yet, so he can’t participate. There is no opposition to object to Karl’s motion. (In the business, they call it “ex parte”.) I could see this being a situation where, if Karl were to revive this motion later down the line, and if Billy’s lawyer at that time gives some flat-ass response like “Nuh-uh, I don’t think he should do that,” judge might say “Well, that’s not a good enough reason for me to deny this.” But without that opposition present, she has to imagine what such an objection might be. And that, I think, is a good enough reason for her to play it safe and say “No” for now.

Karl would be within his right to move for this again later, if he wishes. And if his filing process is found to be a burden at that time, or (as I suggested earlier) is hindering his ability to present his case, he’ll have better grounds to compel consideration from the court. Or heck, maybe Billy’s attorneys won’t object to the motion at all, so they won’t have greyscale Trump scans haunting their nightmares.

Literally everyone gets motions denied. This is the most minimal, barely procedural motion you could possibly fail on. It’s obviously not going to stop Karl. He can continue filing paperwork as he has been.

But you know who did think this was a big deal?

Yes, this of all things is what Junior was celebrating on Twitter. “OH NO! ABSOLUTELY FELTED!!”

I’m not even kidding. Check the date. And of course, people who know nothing about this case whatsoever immediately assumed a Floridian named Billy Mitchell wouldn’t be lying about a big victory for the umpteenth time.

Remember, these are the people who will happily tell you “kArL mIsLeD eVeRyOnE aBoUt tHe LaWsUit”.

Obviously, it’s possible that Junior knows full well this was a nothing-burger, and he wants you to think it was a big deal. But as we’ll see in a second, I’m not so sure he isn’t genuinely that dense. I don’t think he understands the storm gathering on his family’s horizon.

SUMMONERS WAR

A few days later, on April 30th, Karl filed a formal “Summons in a Civil Action”, naming William James Mitchell of Weston, Florida. Note that this is not the same as serving Billy with the lawsuit; it just lays the groundwork for that to happen. In other words, while you may choose to believe this is a vanity suit if you want, Karl is proceeding as though he is fully serious in seeing this through.

https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Legal-Karl-vs-Billy-2026-04-30-Karl-Summons.pdf

Once again, there’s personal info on that document, which I normally wouldn’t distribute (for multiple reasons), but it’s readily available at CourtListener and PACER anyway, so… I guess I’m saying I give up trying to hide it. Up until now, I’ve avoided discussing Billy’s living situation, because some things are out of bounds even for fuckheads like him. I did, after all, voluntarily redact some of Billy’s medical history from his interrogatories in the TG case. However, this info is available now, so I guess some may be curious what this “Weston” thing is about. In all of Billy’s voluntary litigation, he gives his address as 4799 Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, Florida. I never attempted to hide this address, because it’s not a residence; that’s the location of “Rickey’s” restaurant, which until recently was majority-owned by his sister. (Long story.) That’s what was on all the court paperwork, and it’s a public business, so there was no privacy to consider. However, it was never hard to find Billy’s actual home address (the home owned by his wife), due to Billy’s many, many, many, many, maaaany traffic tickets, which you can easily find in Broward and neighboring counties. I’m not saying I’m big on traffic laws myself, but this dude does not care one solitary fuck. Seriously, there’s a lot of these tickets everywhere you look. (Some of us used to joke how hilarious it would be if we found a traffic ticket for Billy in one county at the same time he was supposedly setting a Donkey Kong world record in another far away county, but no such luck.) Out of curiosity, I did look up this house, but it’s in a gated neighborhood, with apparently no access for the Google street view cars.

At any rate, here’s the key sentence from this summons:

The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

And it gives Karl’s address in Australia. Normally, this would be where his attorney’s contact info would go, but since he’s self-represented, Billy will have to send his response directly to Karl.

This is just telling him “Here’s where to send your shit”, right? Makes sense. Pretty simple.

So how did people respond?

Wait… “For Billy Mitchell to answer in Australia”? “Forcing Mitchell to respond in Karl’s country”?

This is a summons. This is a required step to proceed, in Florida. This has literally nothing to do with the denied motion for electronic filing, and only relates to Karl’s finances in that he’s self-represented, and so there’s no Florida attorney to send paperwork to.

Wait… Do people think the Florida lawsuit… the one based entirely on American defamation law… is like, going to be transferred to Brisbane court… somehow?

Where the hell are people getting this stuff?

OMG LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Junior’s being deliberately cryptic here, so we can’t say for certain what he means. But… Does he really think he or his father actually has to go to Australia for this? That seems to be the way all his followers took it.

And why is Junior still running his mouth on Twitter? Have the Mitchells still not spoken to a lawyer about any of this? Don’t tell me their pal Jimmy Steps stopped returning their calls. (Damn, I really have to finish that David Race write-up.)

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

On the 6th of May, Karl filed his “First Amended Complaint”. Like I said, at least per my understanding, you get to do an amended complaint once without permission. (My searches say permission should be granted for further amendments anyway if “the cause of justice warrants it” or some such.)

https://perfectpacman.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Legal-Karl-vs-Billy-2026-05-06-Karl-Amended-complaint.pdf

You can review the new document side-by-side with the original complaint, if you wish. Personally, I’d say that would be a helpful exercise for anyone wishes to report professionally on the relevance of this amended complaint, wouldn’t you agree? (That’s what we call foreshadowing.)

There are some obvious superficial changes. The entire exhibit document is gone, and so are in-line references to exhibits by number. The tweets which did survive were re-captured in light mode, lol. I wonder why! In place of the image gallery, relevant tweets are now represented through text descriptions. This is seen most clearly in the section “Mitchell’s Malice and Pattern of Conduct”, where Karl illustrates what used to be included in the exhibits:

Note that it is my understanding that the exhibits aren’t necessary at this stage. Karl just needs to allege the relevant facts, and the actual evidence can be weighed either at “Motion to Dismiss” / anti-SLAPP stage, or later at trial. But he’s certainly entitled to give his complaint some extra weight, especially since pro se litigation may arrive with a negative stereotype.

Some bits of language are improved. The “hail Mary” argument from before is gone altogether, which relieves me. Karl has added an introduction to the section on Notch, explaining that Notch is literally the creator of one the best-selling video games of all time, a game so ubiquitous that even the Boomerest of judges will instantly recognize the name. (No joke, as I wrote this, I went to Wikipedia to check their numbers, and when I typed “List of best-selling video games” in the search bar, the preview image was Notch himself lmao. Officially, there is dispute whether the top title belongs to Minecraft or Tetris.)

And there’s now a reconfigured passage highlighting Notch’s continued defense of Karl. I feel like this should go without saying, but Karl emphasizing the support he’s received from Mr. Minecraft (regardless of how folks in the gaming world feel about Notch personally) should elevate the stature of this pro se complaint in the eyes of the judge. That and the bankruptcy talk ought to communicate “Oh, this guy is pro se because he and the person he’s suing are broke, not because lawyers turned this down for being meritless.”

Last update, I did not adequately grasp that “actual malice” in legal terms means specifically “acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth”, and not like “Damn, this guy really has an axe to grind.” And for that, I apologize and pledge to do better. That said, this “knowledge [or] reckless disregard” language was present throughout Karl’s filing all along, showing that at least he knows what he’s doing. That language persists in the amended complaint of course, but it’s been tightened up here and there. For instance, when discussing David Race’s testimony, this sentence from the original complaint…

Mitchell’s statements were therefore not the product of mistake or confusion, but were made with actual malice.

… became this in the amended complaint:

Mitchell’s statement was therefore not the product of mistake or confusion but was made with knowledge of falsity.

The text of the actual counts is fleshed out with more detail as well. But all the basic sections are there, in the same order no less. If you could follow the first one, you could follow this one. And… if you couldn’t follow the first one…

I told you to keep those goggles handy!

So what exactly does LUS mean when they ask via stream title “Karl Jobst Mess Up His Filing”?

Funny thing, when the amended complaint was initially uploaded by the court, it was missing page two! It goes right from paragraph 2 to the back half of paragraph 9. Karl’s page numbers go from one to three, but the blue court page stamp identifies page three as “Page 2 of 27”. And the stitched sentence makes no sense. I actually downloaded this early copy myself, so I can show you how it appeared:

Hilarious! Damn, if Karl’s getting “felted” by anyone, it’s that dang court clerk messing up all his shit! I don’t suppose this is the revenge of that “Melanie Griffith” lady?

The court eventually figured things out, because the correct copy is on CourtListener now. Had this actually been a filing error from Karl, he would’ve had to acknowledge it and probably ask for leave to re-file, and no such motion was made. So… we know for sure it was the court’s fault.

LUS starts their one-hour stream saying their producer pointed out this error:

Goosie’s actually made a very cool discovery… and I myself didn’t really notice this when I…

LUS then immediately pivots mid-sentence. What was LUS about to say there? “I myself didn’t really notice this when I read it“? “When I did a different eight-minute video discussing this filing earlier today“? Hmmmm. Neither would be reassuring.

In true LUS fashion, they immediately assume this faux pas must be Karl’s fault, referring back to it over and over. “In his carelessness, he actually didn’t even put page 2.” “Karl Jobst is probably the least careful plaintiff I’ve ever seen in my life.” LUS then shows a tweet from their producer, literally proving it was the court’s fault:

And yet, at 9:40, even with this proof on screen, plainly staring them in the face, LUS lapses right back into their desire to blame Karl for everything:

I don’t know, is… is it the court is missing page two? It would be far more funny if… if Karl just didn’t submit page two. Clearly, he hasn’t really learned.

At about 34:40, LUS comes across the tweet from Legal Mindset – the one about how he supposedly investigated Karl with his “Australian lawyer colleague”. LUS refers to LM as “our good friend”, before dropping this curious confession:

Nothing came out of this. Legal Mindset, I don’t actually believe has an Australian lawyer colleague.

LMAOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

So either LUS themself is making shit up as usual – a distinct possibility – or all these grifters are just full of lies.

Also, I swear to you, multiple times in the video (24:30, 43:20, 44:00), LUS refers to Karl’s Australian barrister as his “barista” lolololololol. Listen for yourself!

Tony, how do you not know the word “barrister”? I get that it’s more of a Commonwealth thing, but… Aren’t you an attorney?

LUS guesses that Notch wouldn’t want his communications with Karl published, which of course blindly assumes Karl didn’t properly check with Notch first. (Hmmm, all of this sounds familiar.) At about 48:00, LUS pretends to try to put themself in Notch’s shoes:

He keeps dragging this Notch guy in. Like, if I’m a billionaire and I paid for your legal fees Karl, I don’t want to be part of this when you lose. I don’t want to be part of this when you… It makes me look bad. So I’m billionaire… I will be there when you win, I’ll be at the party when you win, Karl. But I don’t want to be associated with you when you lose. That’s the mentality of billionaires, right? That’s how they got so much money. They’re winners. And they don’t associate with losers. And you can see this from Markus’s behavior as well, right?

Once again, has LUS read any of this?

At 33:30, LUS reads from a prepared stream outline, which reads in part:

To support his claim, Karl added a whole new section called “Mitchell’s Malice and Pattern of Conduct”…

With the document open on screen, LUS then highlights the text of the section title itself – “Mitchell’s Malice and Pattern of Conduct” – while reiterating:

This is a whole new section, by the way.

“Whole new”, huh?

If you ever want to hide something from LUS, place it prominently in a legal document they claim to know anything about.

Comparing the original and amended complaints, the content in that section isn’t especially different, either. It looks like there’s a bunch more stuff, but that’s because (again) all those tweet screenshots from before have been converted into text descriptions rather than an abbreviated reference to “(Exh. 45)”. You understand that immediately if you… you know… read them side-by-side.

I’ll close this book on LUS on a personal note. At about 19:00, LUS seems to respond to someone in chat invoking me:

Erscat is insane. Erscat is insane. Like Erscat is… I think he’s so biased and such a fan of Karl Jobst… that he’s got to like the level of like… How can I say it, like… He has no life but Karl Jobst. Karl Jobst is Erscat’s god. And it’s very funny, cuz Erscat went all the way to Australia to then report on the case… And he didn’t even say “Hi” to Karl Jobst. That’s kind of like, who that person is.

First of all, my user name is two English words. Why is this that hard, sib? Secondly, what the fuck are you talking about!? It’s not any of your business what Karl and I did or did not say to each other in Australia. But where do you come up with this shit? Where did you get this? Why would you assume this? Even if someone had earnestly and directly suggested this to you, that I didn’t so much as say “Hi” to Karl in Australia, why would you even believe it!? Do you believe literally every stray thought that crosses your mind?

I’m telling you all, watching LUS and taking them the least bit seriously makes you dumber and less informed. You may as well go and wrap your lips around a tailpipe, you’d get about the same results.

You may now stow your goggles, as we head to today’s conclusion.

THE DRAGON’S SLUMBER

So let’s recap. The people who didn’t read the counts, who didn’t read the exhibits, who don’t review the evidence, who didn’t read the complaint, who don’t compare the amendments, who couldn’t understand the allegations, who don’t understand burdens of proof, who don’t apply the law, who haven’t looked at anything, who don’t know what the complaint is about, who get basic facts wrong, and who have no idea what’s going on… They all agree Karl Jobst has no chance of winning.

Billy also seems to think Karl has no shot. Even if that’s not actually Mullet Man behind the wheel of his social media, he’s still allowing Junior to run his mouth in dangerous ways. He is cryptically celebrating a “New victory”, after recently pinning yet another Karl-related commercial plug, this time mockingly using a picture from Karl’s cancer surgery.

Even some of Billy’s own fans are like “Dude… Are you sure you know what you’re doing?”

Out of a desire not to make the world a shittier place, I’ve endeavored not to give advice to narcissists on how to better succeed at fraud and litigation. But I should be fair, and a bit neutral – if not for the sake of either party, then at least with consideration of you, my loyal readers. For your benefit, I should entertain what I believe to be Billy’s most viable path to victory.

William James Mitchell III, here’s my advice:

DO NOT TALK TO AN ATTORNEY! All your lawyer will do is lie to you! I mean, what do they know, anyway? They’re just gonna tell you to stop having fun. You and your son should keep running your mouths about this case all over social media. You don’t want everyone to think you’re chicken, do you? Heck, you should fire up more streams, and openly accuse Karl of more blatant crimes. Keep escalating each time. “Karl Jobst embezzled… five million dollars from… the… Toastmasters Society.” “Karl Jobst kidnapped an endangered parakeet and carried it across state lines to fund narcoterrorism.” Be creative! And this is important, assure everyone that you have very real incontrovertible evidence confirming it all. You are the authority after all, right? Make sure everyone knows, you’ve got the inside scoop. Oh, and keep those name and likeness promos coming! The more you can link your defamat… yyyyourrrrrr definitely-a-good-idea statements about Karl to your business, the better.

Last time, I used words like “airtight” and “bulletproof” and “ironclad” to describe most of Karl’s lawsuit. And honestly, my thoughts haven’t changed. I’m not qualified to judge the “emotional distress” and “name and likeness” counts. And I wouldn’t expect Karl to achieve a clean sweep at the anti-SLAPP / motion to dismiss stage, because that’s a lot to ask. But each of the defamation counts at least should survive.

What some of these jokers seem to be forgetting is that anti-SLAPP isn’t asking “Will this case win at trial, and if that’s unlikely, can we kill it now?” It’s merely asking the question as to whether Karl has a “prima facie” case (a case “on its face”). And he clearly, obviously does. The evidence and arguments at that stage must be weighed entirely in Karl’s favor. We saw that with Billy’s anti-SLAPP motion in California – he peppered it with enough lies to establish that he theoretically had a valid case, and thus was allowed to proceed. If any given statement Billy made about Karl can be interpreted as an accusation of a crime, it must be considered as such for purposes of anti-SLAPP. The ultimate trier of fact would then be called upon to decide interpretations; that would be what we call the trial.

I guess, if I had to identify a potential weak spot, maaaybe jurisdiction could be an issue? Admittedly, this gets into blind territory for me. Federal court requires that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs”. Karl clearly knows this, as the filing pleads this point as fact; no substantiating evidence is provided, but none is required at the complaint stage. Surely, punitive damages would exceed that amount, but I’m wholly unsure what happens if they ultimately do not, or what exactly is factored into the phrase “in controversy” in the first place. (I’m assuming Billy accusing Karl of $550,000 of fraud does not necessarily equate to a $550,000 civil claim for these purposes, although I believe a final award in Karl’s favor could actually be much higher.) If jurisdiction is challenged, Karl would not benefit from the favorable anti-SLAPP standard on that specific point. But I also know of no reason Billy should prevail on this question either. Even if it’s found that Karl needs to specify that amount explicitly as claimed damages, the court would give him leave to amend accordingly. So that still feels like a dead-end for Mullet Man.

Everything here works against Billy. He’s not going to dispose of this without a trial, and a lengthy process leading up to it. Billy’s going to have to pay an attorney to defend something this serious, while Karl can (for the meantime) continue relying on his own resourcefulness and talent as a researcher. Billy can’t even expect to win a jury on pity or sympathy, not with the shock factor from stuff like that hanging tweet. As someone who has read the complaint, and who does know the evidence and does understand the allegations, I think the naysayers are sleeping on Karl’s chances. Billy’s not very smart (see the Third Law), but if he was, he’d seek a quick settlement, even if that entailed reading a prepared statement of retraction written by his worst enemy. He’s already stepped in the dog poop. Can’t take that back. Only reason not to settle quick would be his pride.

But who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the judge will be like these failed lawyers on YouTube. “This is stoopid. Why does this look this way? C’mon Karl, everyone knows you lie about everything and your videos suck. Why are you giving King Billy another win? Jirard did nothing wrong.”

I guess we’ll find out! Thank you as always for reading. See you next time.