Karl versus Billy: Day 3

by ersatz_cats

It just continues, my, oh, my! Lots more Billy cross, lots more Billy lies, and the judge was NOT happy about something. Sweet Lord, I’m staring down a whapping 30 and a half pages. As I write this introduction, I’m six hours away from Thursday’s hearing, and I’m just gonna be honest, I might not finish all of Wednesday today. Sorry folks. (I’ll explain why later.) At any rate, lemme offer my standard caveats, plus one new one:

Unlike my usual writing, this’ll be quick and raw. I am NOT going to reintroduce stuff from my previous “Karl vs Billy” posts (going back to “Day 0” and “Day 1” and then “Day 2” yesterday), so I will assume you’ve read them. As a reminder though, “BB” refers to “Billy’s barrister”, and “KB” refers to “Karl’s barrister”. (A barrister is an attorney who can address the court and who is forced to wear a silly robe.) Lastly, I’m normally very careful with quotes to make sure they’re accurate, but I can usually relisten to media to confirm. Since these are all one-and-done, there’ll be plenty of times where I capture what I think is the essence of what was said. “Anything in regular quotes should be considered word-for-word.” [“Anything with brackets means ‘Not word-for-word, but conveys the meaning of what was said.”] (And even then, I’m human and can make mistakes.)

Also, someone raised a factual inaccuracy with something Billy had said, which I had written. And that’s totally fair! However, while I don’t recall the exact words said to me, it felt framed as though I had inadvertently printed false information. And normally, I’m very careful about that sort of thing, but these are not normal posts. So I want to be clear: For these updates, I’m not fact-checking every little thing Billy says. I’m trying to make clear who said what, and that’s the end of it. I have no time for that right now. I am just reporting the fact that Billy said it. If you ever believe anything Billy Mitchell tells you, I will personally come to your house, throw eggs in your face, and then tell you someone else did it.

OBJECTIONS RAISED

Slept in a tiny bit late, so had to salvage brekky from the fridge. (I have discovered “brekky” is an official term here.) The day started out with just me and one regular. As the hearing drew near, the clerk made extra sure to declare that use of any electronic devices was prohibited. Billy sat there on his phone regardless, though he did put it away as soon as the judge arrived. Oh, and he was back to the classic West Point tie again.

The judge wasted zero time in getting to it: [“It has come to my attention, the possibility was raised, that when your client was on the phone in court yesterday, he was texting with his son, discussing this case. If that’s the case, then your client is in contempt.”] The lawyers bantered a bit, and then the hearing was adjourned, mere minutes after it started. Everyone was like “OH SHITTTTTTTT”.

Here’s what I can tell you. I stepped out, and overheard Karl’s party with eager interest to directly contact the person who had written yesterday’s note:

I chimed in, and said I knew this person and knew who to contact them. However, there was one difficulty: I could only do so back at my hotel. (Long story, but I didn’t bother to bring my phone to Australia. Yes, I’ve been running around without a phone this whole time.) And it was asked that I do so, ASAP. Normally, I would not abandon my primary mission here of documenting the hearing, but obviously this was important enough. I was told the judge was “very raised” over this issue, which I assumed meant angry. I found a very helpful new regular, who I very much appreciate, who agreed to take notes in my absence.

I will say that I was not the one to bring this matter to the attention of the court. Folks rightly pointed out at the end of yesterday’s update that I should have, and perhaps that’s correct. I’ve been focused on my interest in being an observer, and not being directly involved, but (as with my notifying Karl’ solicitor I could contact the person) maybe this should have been an exception. But thankfully, I didn’t have to! It is also my understanding that Karl’s party did not bring it to the court’s attention, either, but obviously I couldn’t testify to that of personal knowledge.

Before I continue, please bear in mind that for the next couple bits, I cannot attest as the primary witness. (Well, not witness witness. You know what I mean.) I’m getting this part second-hand.

After reconvening, BB assured the judge he was instructed by his client that there were no text messages. The judge reminded everyone that nobody, outside of attorneys or accredited media, are allowed to use electronics in the court. BB asked if they could know how this was brought to the court’s attention. Judge said no.

I also found this local media reporting, which offered another account of this exchange (with BB referred to as “Mr. Somers”):

Mr Somers said his client hadn’t been texting his son while seated in the courtroom and the only texts between father and son were made after court to discuss breakfast and dinner arrangements.

Judge Barlow said “of course there would be communication” between the pair about eating plans because they were in a foreign country.

“I was concerned because it had been drawn to my attention so I thought I would raise it,” Judge Barlow said.

He ruled that Mr Mitchell was not at risk of contempt of court for being caught on his phone.

Now… one might think Billy lied here… and he certainly did, of course. It’s blatantly obvious. Yeah. Actually, that’s all. He lied. Two people saw him texting “Billy IV” in the courtroom, with one being able to read the specific messages, which indicated an intention to lie and conceal evidence. Now, is it possible Billy was actually using some DM app like Signal instead of proper text messages, and that’s sort of their out? Not that the judge would be impressed by this contrived distinction, of course.

And the problem is, even if you called the person who witnessed this up to testify, it would be their word against Billy’s, with no immediate way to resolve it. (Yes, the network logs text messages, but retrieving that is an arduous endeavor, and would be unsuccessful if some app was used instead. In the end, Karl’s attorneys did not pursue the matter further. At some point, you just have to have faith that the judge sees what’s going on, even if they allowed the proceeding to continue. And let’s be real… they gonna win anyway.

DOCUMENTARY

At 10:01, Billy’s cross-examination resumed. KB pointed out that Karl published an apology, to which Billy countered that that’s a matter of opinion, adding that it was not an apology, and that the main content of this new video did not relate to the earlier one.

The court then played that portion from the video “The Greatest Feat In Video Game History”. You can watch it for yourself, starting at about 28:20:

In short, Karl issues a clarification, and explains that Apollo almost certainly did not pay money to Billy, and adds that he did not and does not accuse Billy of murder.

Around here’s where I re-entered the court and resumed my notes. This was my first time entering the room while the actual proceeding was underway. I’ve learned – strictly through observation – that in this court, one is apparently required to bow toward the judge whenever one enters or leaves during a proceeding. I…. hope I remembered? Come to think of it, I might not have.

Anyway, I walked into the middle of an exchange between KB and Billy. And admittedly, without the warmup period, it took me a moment to get back to full note-taking speed. KB asked if Billy felt that was an apology, to which Billy said “Not even close.” Billy was offended that Karl seemed to be using the opportunity to defend himself, rather than defending Billy. The judge stepped in to ask if Billy accepted that, as said in that video, Karl was not accusing him of murder. But Billy doubled down, saying he has a different opinion. Billy claimed it was over a year before he saw this correction, adding that his name is not in either the title, preface, or thumbnail of the video. [“He certainly didn’t put the same spirit into this video as he did the other ones.”]

Billy asserted that he never asked for money from Apollo, before expressing this belief that Karl was more apologizing to his viewers than he was apologizing to Billy. Billy said his son had seen it, but it was over a year before someone he knew brought it to his attention. KB then asked “You don’t know your son?” Billy then got angry with KB: [“You can mince words all you want, that is a sick excuse for what he did!”]

KB reminded Billy of his earlier testimony, expressing his belief that everyone who saw Karl’s video also saw Billy’s reaction video. KB then asked Billy if the same principle applies, that everyone who saw Karl’s first video saw the retraction. Billy said he doesn’t accept that, adding that it was a 30-minute video, and that the correction was in the “last 30 seconds”. [“He didn’t want to bring any attention to it, and he didn’t.”]

KB asked Billy why he didn’t at least add a link to this correction in the description of his response video. Billy replied [“Why would I? Maybe if it was a real apology. Maybe you hear something I don’t.”] Meanwhile, Billy said the nasty comments kept coming, even after Karl’s apology.

KB changed topics, asking Billy if in 2018 he had a reputation as a guy who cheated to have highest score on Donkey Kong. KB brought up the Donkey Kong Forum post “Billy Mitchell’s Direct Feed Recordings are MAME Generated”. KB asked Billy to confirm that the article accused him of cheating. Billy replied, “I would say this article accused me of using the wrong software.” KB was quick to clarify, that he was not asking Billy whether he cheated, but rather if it accused him of cheating. While I do have in my notes, with quote marks, that Billy used the word “article” in the previous reply, Billy now took the position that it wasn’t really an “article”, but rather a post on a forum, by someone with a fictitious name.

KB asked Billy if he later sued Donkey Kong Forum, along with owner Jeff Harrist and moderator Jeremy Young. Billy described filing paperwork, claiming that it was about maintaining jurisdiction, but that he did not serve it, adding that if that counts as a “lawsuit”, then yes, and if not, then no.

KB read a portion from Billy’s legal complaint against DKF:

MITCHELL has been damage by these false statements because the statements subject MITCHELL to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.

KB asked Mitchell to repeat that, because of Jeremy’s article, people treated him differently. Billy said [“Yes, the people in that small forum did.”] When asked again if this injured his reputation, Billy reiterated [“Among a small group of people for a short time, yes.”]

KB brought up Apollo’s original video about Billy, from February 2018, clarifying that Billy owns the copyright to it now. Billy was asked about negative impressions from that video. He dismissed them, adding [“The allegations in that video have been known to be false for years now.”]

KB brought up the movie King of Kong, asking Billy to confirm that it’s the #1 video game movie of all time. Billy differed, suggesting that honor actually goes to Tron. There was some confusion among the normies, with KB admitting he’s never seen Tron.

KB asked if Billy got some degree of fame from the movie, with Billy saying [“I’d agree with that,”] adding that it would get him recognized in places like Australia. Billy then added [“I would say the largest amount of fame is from Pac-Man, but then you put Donkey Kong with it.”]

KB asked Billy if he had the reputation of someone who ostracized others over video game scores. There was some disagreement over the word “ostracized”, before Billy said [“I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t do that.”]

KB then prepared to play clips from King of Kong. BB asked to be told which parts of the movie would be shown, but did not get a response. Judge reminded BB that the whole movie is in the pleading. BB protested that he was not told which specific parts would be used, but Judge noted that that’s not unusual.

As they sorted out some technical issues, KB asked Billy if he’s familiar with the film. Billy said “I made the film, I should be familiar with it.”

KB then played the stretch of King of Kong which shows Wiebe playing at Funspot while Billy’s tape attracted all the attention. The clip continued showing various people’s reactions. Which means that, yes, this trial did feature an appearance by “Mister Awesome” Roy Shildt.

KB asked if that sequence demonstrates ostracizing someone over challenging his video game scores. Billy began to get sarcastic. [“That’s a movie. You need me to explain it? You need me to explain that to you?”] Judge stepped in to say it clearly seems to show him involved in ostracizing others, to which Billy again disagreed. KB then clarified that he’s not asking if Billy ostracized others, but rather whether the movie portrayed that. Billy partially agreed, [“Yes, the movie attempts to portray that.”] KB started to move on, but then did a [“Wait wait, it ‘attempts’ to portray that?”]

KB recalled Billy’s Day 1 testimony about factual inaccuracies in the movie. Namely, Billy said the first 45 minutes glorified him, but the rest showed him not wanting anything to do with Steve. Therefore, the movie portrayed him as ostracizing Steve, correct? Billy agreed [“Yes, it does.”]

KB then played another clip, from the Florida event where Billy walks by Steve. Billy claimed it was edited, but once again, KB noted that it portrayed him ostracizing Steve. Billy offered [“I’d say that’s the narrative of the movie, and they did it well.”]

KB attempts to tender the clips into evidence. The Judge remarks that he would prefer not to have to watch the whole movie. BB objects that KB is again trying to prove bad reputation through the use of media.

At this point, the Judge asked for some clarification as to whether the movie is a documentary, or a fictional movie. Billy said [“Most people call it a docu-drama. If it was a documentary, they wouldn’t have asked me to reshoot a scene over and over and over.”] KB asked Billy to confirm that the movie didn’t have a script, to which Billy replied [“I would say parts of it were scripted.”] Billy added that none of the movies he’s been in have had a script, they would bring in things for him to say, and then he’d rewrite them for himself, like Pure Pwnage. (Billy did not, at this time, acknowledge his appearance in Fiddling Horse, an actual scripted movie.) KB said, the movie certainly watches like a documentary. Billy said, if it was a true documentary, it would’ve included Billy’s meeting with Wiebe in 2004, adding that it was left out because it would’ve messed up the filmmakers’ narrative. Billy then offered that all his subsequent movies were born out of the success of this one, except Chasing Ghost which was filmed at the same time and which featured Billy as the good guy, adding that people don’t like the good guy.

KB asked Billy to confirm that he was exposed for cheating in 2018. Billy said [“I can say those allegations are false. Guinness says they’re false. Namco says they’re false. Nintendo says they’re false. And now Twin Galaxies says they’re false.”] Billy said he was not “exposed” for cheating, was accused by a bunch of guys on a forum, not professionals. KB offered that one can still be “exposed” for something they didn’t do. Billy once again got angry and raised his voice. [“That’s my problem! It doesn’t matter if you didn’t do it!”] Billy invoked how celebrities get accused of awful things they can never separate themselves from. [“Murder, manslaughter, rape, misappropriation with minors, it never goes away, and hounding another human being to death is along those lines!”]

KB said the original publication said Billy was banned from submitting scores to Twin Galaxies for cheating, to which Billy disagreed. KB asked, [“But you were banned from TG for cheating?”]. Billy said “I was told that, yes”, before adding [“I was told I was banned, but I never tried to submit a score.”] The Judge asked how long the ban lasted. Billy clarified that Jobst’s video was in 2021, that Guinness reinstated Billy in 2020, but that TG’s resolution came later, in January of this year. Billy then claimed the TG settlement would allow him to submit scores through normal channels.

Getting back to the question of allegations, Billy said some amount of people talk about them forever. KB asked if we’re here because people talk about it forever. Billy said [“No, we’re here because Jobst never should’ve made the video. It used to be, an allegation is printed in a newspaper, and it goes away. Now it’s forever. You need a retraction with passion.”] KB asked, [“So it’s about passion?”] Billy began talking about the correction video, which KB refers to as the “apology video”, but KB minded Billy that he’s currently referring to Karl’s choice to remove the offending words from the first video. Billy said, it still exists in other places. KB excitedly agreed “It does! And where it exists in other places is in your video!”

KB then referred to the phone call plot recorded by David Race, suggesting that Billy did in fact plan to do what he spoke of. Billy rebuked with a stern “No, no”. KB asked Billy if he planned to die at the exact contested score. Billy said “No. I can do it for you if you’d like, if that’s a challenge.”

KB brought up the verbiage from Karl’s video – “Not that Billy Mitchell would ever care…” KB asked Billy if he remembered sending the text messages to Jace and Carlos. Billy said [“Unfortunately, I do.”] KB asked Billy about his “dark humor”. Billy reiterated that he didn’t joke about Apollo’s death, that Apollo was not dead and that the jokes were about how it was being reported.

KB again brought up Billy’s “Day 1 evidence”. (In Australia, they just call testimony “evidence”, whereas in the U.S. “evidence” has a connotation of proof beyond just “Some guy in a suit said so”.) KB asked Billy about random people coming up to him, saying [“I heard you’re suing somebody and caused a guy to commit suicide.”] Billy said “That still happens”, and that they always have the partial story, forcing him to go all the way through it because he doesn’t want it to linger. When asked to identify these individuals, Billy sarcastically remarked “I’ll jot down names for you”, adding that it’s a “silly question”. The Judge did ask KB how Billy is supposed to give names of random people he encountered. Billy gave an example of a high school esports event, where students asked him about Karl’s allegations. KB then rhetorically asked [“Can I suggest that no one actually comes up to you and asks if you pushed someone to suicide?”]

When asked about his video again, about how it preserves the words Billy claims are so defamatory. Billy got heated (“raised?”) and declared [“I’m gonna go a little out on a limb here.”] Billy said it’s different because the context is different. They don’t watch his video and come away thinking he hounded a person to death, they come away thinking it’s awful that he’s being accused of it. KB asked where in Karl’s video it says Billy hounded anyone to death. Billy replied [“We can watch the video.”] KB asked where in the video it says Apollo had no choice but to commit suicide. Again, an exact portion was not identified.

KB said, on day 1, Billy claimed to suffer anxiety as a result of Karl’s publication. However, KB asked if this was only because of Karl’s publication. Billy said no, any normal person has anxiety from time to time. (Note that I would hardly call Billy a “normal person.) But Billy added that this was a unique anxiety brought on because of Mr. Jobst’s publication. KB said that, on day 1, Billy used the word “terrorized”. Billy said “Yes, emotional distress covers that,” adding that he feels anxiety even when watching it here. KB asked “Can I suggest none of these things are true?”

RULES OF THE GAME

At this point, KB offered that the same claims are pleaded in the Twin Galaxies proceeding. At this point, BB objected in that it relates to issues of damages. KB began to read some legal doctrine, but then raised the same question from yesterday of the witness being allowed to remain in the room as it’s discussed. The Judge told Billy the same as before, that as a party to the case he may opt to remain, however Judge added that if he does, he could open himself to defense counsel arguing during closing that the plaintiff tailored his testimony to what he had heard. Billy said, if it makes his testimony appear more honest, he’s willing to leave. As he was about to depart, he asked how he’ll know to return. Billy was told someone will get him at that time.

This began a long stretch of procedural arguments. The issue seemed to be about whether Karl’s side is arguing things that were not included in their formal pleading. This is important because, that’s the document that informs the other party what arguments are going to be made, and thus what they need to be prepared to respond to. Judge analogized that you can’t claim, in a personal injury case that the harm resulted from an earlier back injury unless you pleaded that the plaintiff had an earlier back injury that harmed him. Judge reviewed the pleadings in this case, offering that Billy is alleged to have a reputation of being a cheater, not one who ostracizes people, adding [“That’s a matter for me to determine, if he had that reputation, and if the publication caused any harm to him.”]

KB cited the pleadings, while BB referred to some Australian case law. BB claimed it was not appropriate for the defense to reduce damages through the inference that other publications have also damaged one’s reputation, which seems to be what’s happening here.

The Judge illustrated that defense counsel seemed to be cross-examining plaintiff about reactions to this publication before the publication at issue, to reduce damages in the event plaintiff prevails. However, KB does not isolate damages from prior publications from the Karl video. Judge notes BB’s objection that it was not pleaded that plaintiff did not suffer harm from this because he suffered harm from a previous publication. Judge added [“By absence of a full pleading of such facts, the defense cannot seek to prove such facts by cross-examining the plaintiff.”] The Judge did note he already ruled that other publications were relevant to the question of harm. Case law was cited that earlier publications can’t relate to damages, but to matters of causation, with Judge noting that defense seems to be questioning beyond causation, and thus beyond the bounds approved.

After a twelve-minute break, with Billy back in the witness box, KB spoke up, saying he should be permitted to challenge the witness on harm and causes of harm. Judge said again [“Yes, but you didn’t plead it.”] KB noted that these questions challenge the plaintiff’s testimony. Judge said KB can challenge testimony, just not with other publications.

KB then suggested he may file an application to amend the pleadings, alleging that any injury to plaintiff was in fact caused by earlier publications. KB said it was the evidence (testimony) that’s come out in these proceedings which has prompted this amended pleading, citing the claims of atrial fibrillation, the $50k and $35k claimed losses of income.

An issue comes up which KB is then reluctant to discuss with Billy in the room. Judge offered Billy the same choice as before, and Billy chose to quietly leave. Judge noted for the transcript that Billy left the room.

KB then begins to discuss the Twin Galaxies deposition. At this time, BB noted that his side is not citing the $50k and $35k as specific damages, but rather as a general basis of harm. As both parties concede, they’ve had the deposition for quite some time. It’s not an issue that they had to disclose it, rather that if the pleadings are going to be amended, then Billy’s attorneys have the right to address it, including in “evidence in chief” (direct questioning, before cross-examination). BB notes the trial may not proceed if the amendment is made. BB said he’s heard of the claims of damages in the David Race and Apollo Legend lawsuits, noting that once they’re added to the pleadings, they will need time to investigate it. BB noted that he’s presently at a disadvantage without “instruction” (to discuss the matter with his client). Judge briefly adjourns to allow for instruction.

Following the break, KB seeks that instead of adding all these other publications, they can just add the TG publication. BB notes that this could include other publications which follow, which could result in other witnesses to call. Yesterday, more documents came out, including the eight-hour deposition, and five years of litigation, which would all need to be reconsidered in light of amended pleadings. Judge asks what these other witnesses would be. BB notes them as medical-related. Judge remarked that the defense could have filed for this amendment yesterday.

The Judge then began a long speech, summarizing his determination. Judge notes that KB seeks leave for an amended pleading, saying this arises out of Billy’s testimony about topics such as stress, atrial-fibrillation, and particular loss of income. As a result, the defense wishes to test these claims by way of an earlier TG publication. BB opposes that pleading, noting that there was no objection to that testimony leading to the cross-examination on evidence provided in California resulting from the TG pleading. Judge notes defense has had had the opportunity since May of last year to amend the pleading in this way. Judge notes that to allow this amended pleading would result in adjourning the entire trial to seek instructions, and would likely result in the calling of other witnesses to testify to the effects of the TG publication and the effects of Karl’s publication, with three such witnesses being identified already. The defense wishes to test the evidence behind a statement of claim, but to do that in this way would completely derail this proceeding. Judge says it would behoove the defense to object to specific bits of evidence. Otherwise, Judge is going to decline leave to amend at this time.

TRUE LIES

Billy then returned to the box, and cross-examination resumed. KB noted that on day 1, Billy testified that John Weeks cancelled Billy for hosting an event. Billy identified Weeks as the former owner of the Museum of Pinball, who planned to liquidate his stock, and asked Billy to host the event for $50k. KB asked if there was a written agreement, to which Billy said there was not. KB then asked Billy about story behind Weeks’ email, where Weeks specifically cites Karl’s video as the basis for cancelling the event. KB asked “Can I suggest that story is a fabrication?”

BB objected that, if this only goes to the question of prior credibility, then it’s not permitted. Judge remarked, [“Is that not the point?”], asking why this would not be relevant. [“Are you suggesting one cannot question on prior inconsistent statements for credit?”] BB says yes, if not for credit, but rather a different issue. (At this point, I should say that “credit” is clearly an Australian reference to some bit of legal nuance, but at present I’m not able to identify what exactly this means. Google is very helpful with pages and pages about credit scores and credit protection laws, not so much with this.) Judge then remarked that credit often is an issue, but not in this proceeding. KB notes that credit is an issue in this proceeding, adding that the effect of the objection would be that this witness can testify and show evidence, but the opposition cannot challenge it. Judge notes that, if that’s the point of this questioning, he’ll allow him to proceed.

KB shows a portion of Billy’s deposition transcript:

KB noted that, in his deposition, Billy claimed John Weeks cancelled because of Twin Galaxies. Billy said he doesn’t recall. Billy then added that Weeks didn’t cancel the whole event, just the auction, because he didn’t feel he could get a good auction in 2020, so it was pushed to summer of 2021, which was after Karl’s vid. Billy claims they spoke on the phone first, and that he received the email later. Billy added that Tash technically didn’t say in that deposition that the TG statement was the “accusation” being referring to, as opposed to the Jobst publication.

KB got dramatic, asking Billy if he’s saying that, in the Twin Galaxies deposition, when asked by TG’s lawyer who cancelled because of “the accusations against you”, that we should understand that as a reference to Karl Jobst’s publication.

Billy said “Yes”, adding that by 2021, there was no longer any effect from the TG statement, and that everything was fine.

The crowd has remained mostly silent, but this was a moment where they became audibly incredulous. The Judge also raised a stern eyebrow, remaking [“But you were asked about cancellations relating to Twin Galaxies.”]

Billy said, it wasn’t specified, and that he didn’t specify each of his answers [“Yes TG on this, Yes Karl on this”].

KB said, on day 1, Billy said that as a direct result of Karl’s video, he went to a doctor and was diagnosed with atrial-fibrillation. Billy then said, no, the doctor said it was because of stress, and that the stress was a result of the video. KB asked if Karl’s video was his only source of stress. Billy said he has stress like anyone, but Karl was the primary source.

KB began to speak of attributed damages, when BB objected, asking that the questioning remain in the discussed bounds. Judge ruled that KB can ask questions to credibility, but can’t try to make the case the harm was caused by other stressors. Once the objections are finished, Billy speaks up: “Can I go back to something?” KB informs him “No”.

KB says, in 2023, in the TG case, Billy attributed his atrial-fibrillation to stress from Twin Galaxies. Billy then says “I think I just said it was stress.” KB reiterated, “You attributed atrial-fibrillation to stress from Twin Galaxies.”

Billy then said, and I quote, “The Twin Galaxies stress is nothing compared to this.” He then promptly repeated the line, except replacing “nothing compared to” with “doesn’t compare to”. KB asked again about attribution of stress, to which Billy said [“Well, it’s stress, so I guess you could attribute it.”]

Billy then attempted to patch this all up with a soliloquy. [“Lemme tell you, atrial-fibrillation is caused by stress. Was there stress in the Twin Galaxies situation? Yes. Was there far more stress here? Also yes.”] Billy then added that [“It was first diagnosed…”], before thinking better of it, and saying [“Actually, I don’t know, I don’t want to give the wrong answer.”]

KB then said [“I’m suggesting to you, you’re attributing your atrial-fibrillation to the defendant.”] Billy said [“I don’t think so, because it doesn’t compare.”]

KB goes to remove the exhibit when Judge goes to offer some direct questions of his own. Judge begins to ask Billy about alternate stressors in his life, when KB politely interjects and says he wishes to address that in a particular way. Judge leaves it to KB. At this point, it’s 1:00pm. KB notes his cross-examination will probably not be much longer, probably another 10-15 minutes. Judge agrees to hold off on lunch and push on.

KB cites an interrogatory in the TG case, asking Billy to list every injury attributable to the Incident, with a capital “I”. KB asks Billy if he understands “Incident” to refer to the TG statement. After failing to see the capital “I” for a moment, Billy says he does not recall. KB asks Billy if he recalls giving these answers. A lengthy silence ensues. KB repeats, asking Billy if he recalls giving these answers. Billy said he was still reading. KB asked if we are to interpret that he’s attributing his hernia and atrial fibrillation to Twin Galaxies. Billy said the atrial fibrillation is ongoing, and that he had surgery in 2021. When asked again, Billy answered “I guess that’s what it says here.”

KB called back to Billy’s claim that TG’s damage is “nothing compared to this”. Billy raised his voice yet again. [“It doesn’t compare to this. This is totally different.”] BB lodged the same objection, as a procedural matter. KB then plays Billy’s deposition video, from on-screen timestamp of about 16:58 to about 17:06. Here’s that section, as copied from the transcript:

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· What about the emotional distress that you
endured after April 12, 2018, can you tell me about
that?

A.· Against the advice of counsel, that’s a dumb
question, but I’ll answer it.
When it’s April 12th and a reporter from the
local newspaper shows up at my mom and dad’s house
knocking on the door trying to write a story about me
because of what de — defamatory statements somebody
made, that’s definitely emotional distress.· Okay?
When my mother is trying to call me and my father, and
locate me, okay?· So really, it was on every place,
everywhere.· It went to somebody’s benefit, not mine,
okay?· Anywhere and everywhere that I went it affected
me.· Affected me verbally, people speaking to me about
it; it affected me in business, people not speaking to
me; okay, and affected me in appearances.

Q.· Who didn’t speak to you anymore?

A.· A number of the places that you spoke of here,
who I would normally do appearances with.

Q.· That — that caused you emotional distress?

A.· Shit, yeah.

Q.· What kind of emotional distress?

MR. ELLROD:· Objection, vague.· What do you
mean what kind?

THE WITNESS:· Yeah, what is this, man?· You’re
like a screwball.

MR. ELLROD:· Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· I’m asking you, what kind of emotional
distress.· Did you have depression?

MR. ELLROD:· That’s a fair question.

THE WITNESS:· I had depression; I had anxiety,
okay, without a doubt, okay; I had embarrassment; I
had anger; I had confusion, okay?

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· All right.· Let’s talk about the depression.
How long did that last for?

A.· Who said it’s over?

Q.· So are you currently depressed?

A.· Well, I’m certainly not happy about it.

Q.· No, I’m asking you.

A.· You’re not a psychiatrist.

Q.· I’m not.· I’m asking you.

MR. ELLROD:· Answer the question, just yes or
no.

THE WITNESS:· Yes, of course I am.

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· How long have you been depressed?

A.· Since about February 2, 2018.

Q.· Can you express to me — can you tell me how
that depression has manifested itself?

A.· Because this has affected every part of my
life and the trajectory that I had on it for me and my
family and the goodwill that I wanted for my family and
how much more difficult it’s made it, all for the
stupidity that went on.

Q.· Yeah.· Tell me about the depression.

MR. ELLROD:· I think he just did.

THE WITNESS:· I just did.

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· What symptoms —

A.· You want me to break out a violin?

Q.· What symptoms of depression are you feeling?
You’re currently feeling them, right; what symptoms?

MR. ELLROD:· I’ll object.· It’s vague.

THE WITNESS:· Really.

MR. ELLROD:· Depression is a — is a state of
mind.· It’s — you can ask him if he has any
physical effect from the depression.

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· Are there any physical manifestations of your
depression?

A.· Yes.· I would say that I’m — that I have less
motivation than I did.· I’d say that because of all of
these negative influences I actually have less energy.
I have trouble staying on focus, and I’m regaining that
as time goes by.

Q.· So you’re getting better?

A.· I hope so.

Q.· Yeah.· It’s been, what, four years now?

A.· Yeah.

Q.· Going on five years?

A.· Yeah, and it’s still going on, you’re right.

Q.· What about anxiety, tell me about the anxiety
that you’re feeling.

A.· Well, anxiety when you worry about your kids,
the way they’re approached; your family, the way
they’re approached; your business, the way it’s
affected; financially, the way it’s affected, that’s a
lot of anxiety.

Q.· Well, your — your business is doing great
now, isn’t it?

A.· No, it’s not.

Q.· Are there still lingering effects from the
defamatory statements?

A.· It is.· It’s doing much better since 2020, but
it’s not better.

Q.· Well, how — how old are your kids?

A.· Well, never mind.· You get nothing with my
family.

Q.· You’re telling me that part of the anxiety is
how it’s affected your kids, right?

A.· Correct.

Q.· Has it affected them or your feelings about
them?

A.· No, it’s affected them.

Q.· What about embarrassment, tell me about the
embarrassment you’ve been feeling.

A.· What about it?· People accuse you of something
that’s not true.· People read a headline, and they read
a headline because somebody want hits.

Q.· Is that what you’re alleging?

A.· And when they read that headline, okay, and
then they share it with you, all they read is that
headline.· Nobody does any research, they just assume
it’s true.

Q.· Let’s look at your response to special
interrogatory number 24.

MR. ELLROD:· What exhibit is that?

MR. TASHROUDIAN:· Exhibit A.

THE WITNESS:· What number?

MR. ELLROD:· Twenty-four, so it starts here.

THE WITNESS:· Are —

MR. ELLROD:· No, don’t talk, just read it and
then wait for a question.

THE WITNESS:· Okay.

MR. ELLROD:· Okay.

BY MR. TASHROUDIAN:

Q.· Let’s talk about Dr. Skopit.· So Dr. Skopit
stopped seeing you because of a defamatory statement?

A.· Correct.

Q.· Who told you that?

A.· His manager.

Q.· What’d she say?

A.· She said he read something, he’s
uncomfortable.· Took me awhile to get it out of her,
and that’s what she told me.

Q.· What was the manager’s name?

A.· I don’t know.

Q.· How did she look?

A.· She looks like a manager.· She’s a Hispanic
woman.· She was there on that day.· I mean, it wouldn’t
be difficult to track her down.· He wouldn’t be
difficult to track down.

Q.· Do you have his contact information?

A.· Well, I could get it or I could simply look
online where it was posted.

Q.· It also says here that you developed a hernia
diagnosis and atrial fib — fibrillation due to Twin
Galaxies’ defamatory statement.
Okay.· Well, the atrial fibrillation they said
was directly related to stress.· No other reason.

Q.· Let’s talk about any alternative stressors you
have in your life.· How’s your relationship with your
wife?

A.· Couldn’t be better.

Q.· Has it always been that way?

A.· It’s always been that way.

Q.· What about your — the relationship with your
sister?

A.· What about my sister, which one, I’ve got four
of them?

Q.· Let’s try Christina.

A.· Christina, yes.

Q.· How’s your relationship with her?

A.· Very well.· She’s a nurse.

Q.· What about the — what about the sister that
runs Rickey’s Restaurant, how’s your relationship —
how’s your relationship?

A.· I don’t see her, so it’s fine.

Q.· Why don’t you see her?

A.· I don’t see her because her and my wife don’t
coincide so well, so it’s easier to be separate.

Q.· Has that caused you any stress?

A.· No.

Q.· None at all?

A.· Not at all.

Q.· Are there any alternative stressors you had in
your life that are affecting you now?

A.· Just this and what is the result of this.

Q.· And the other lawsuits, though, right?

A.· Oh, you mean like things that resulted from
this, like Karl Jobst and David Race, yes, very much.

Q.· They’re also causing you emotional stress?

A.· Well, they’re — they’re not making me happy.

Q.· No, I’m asking you, though, are — are — did
the actions that Carl Jobst and David Race and Jeremy
Young and Jeff Harrist state also cause you emotional
distress?

A.· That is minimal compared to this.

As that last line was read, you could physically feel the entire room roll their eyes. Even better, the date timestamp with the year 2023 was emblazoned on the screen.

KB asked Billy again about his comments in this case, that TG was “nothing” compared to this. Billy got visibly angry, declaring [“You’re taking it out of context, deliberately I’d say.”]

KB asked again about Billy’s description of how the TG ruling affected him.

Billy remained heated. [“We were talking about Twin Galaxies. I was in the Twin Galaxies deposition. Would you like an explanation?”]

And after that outburst, without even a second’s hesitation, came those most magical three words:

“No further questions.”

BB asked for leave to 0″take instructions from my client.”] My hope was that this meant “Bro, you gotta start rethinking this shit.” We adjourned for lunch until 2:30pm.

Out in the ninth floor lobby, us regulars approached the elevators. However, Billy and his party were there first, so we opted not to share an elevator with them. I turned to one of the regulars and remarked “There are some people here I don’t want to spend too much time talking to.”

I thankfully was able to take the extended lunch to pick up some necessary items at a relatively distant store. I haven’t really had free time outside of the lunch hour to do this. When I came back, I went to the 9th floor restroom. As I finished up, as much as I’d prefer to avoid Billy, I saw he had entered as well. I’m a practically religious hand-washer, so I was there washing up as Billy did his business. When he was done, he walked behind me, and – and I’m sure you’ll agree this is a very important matter – Billy allllllllllmooooooooooooooooost left without washing his hands lmao. He reached out for that door, he did, and at the very last second he thought better of it, possibly because he realized there was a witness.

DAMAGE CONTROL

(Checks clock) Shit, yeah, I’m not going to make it through all of Day 3 in this write-up. But lemme try and pound out what we in the States call “re-direct” (where Billy’s attorney gets to question him again following cross).

Billy’s side tried their best at damage control. BB brought up that deposition portion, and asked Billy to clarify what he meant. Billy remarked that, since 2020, he’s had a lot to say about TG’s findings about his game scores. Billy added that Karl’s not in the business of high score recognition, and thus his authority is minimal. Twin Galaxies, on the other hand, is a known leader, and thus what they say about his scores “would be maximum”.

BB asked Billy, if you understood the TG question to include all of Jobst’s videos, would his answer have been the same, to which Billy said his answer would not have been the same. Billy added that, in that case, regarding questions over his scores, TG caused the stress, and what others said was minimal.

BB asked if there was any other occasion John Weeks cancelled an appearance. Billy cited a 2018 Halloween event, he did withdraw, and that this was what he referred to in deposition.

Billy was asked again about the distinction between paid and unpaid events. Billy said there are some events he doesn’t charge for, like school events. (Gosh, how sympathetic.) Billy said, if there were 25 appearances, probably 18-20 were paid, but after the Jobst video, it was far less. Billy said he had to do unpaid appearances to stay relevant, and to maintain relationships, so these could go back to being paid later.

Billy described reactions to King of Kong, saying it led to an unlimited number of selfies, autographs, and cameos. Billy claimed to never have a negative interaction following King of Kong, and that he would carry around trading cards, mouse pads, and King of Kong posters to give people. (Ah, how sweet.) BB asked if any of these interactions were negative, saying “Not one”, before clarifying, and I quote, “I’m lyin’ to you about a lot of keyboard warriors…”

Billy then goes into an impersonation of someone who comes up to him with silly questions, like [“Hey, Steve came all that way, why didn’t you play him?”], prompting confused looks from the barristers and judge as to how to lodge this mock voice into the transcript. Billy then continues his story, suggesting he tells people [“Yeah, I beat Wiebe, and then I threw him in a dumpster”].

BB then said he had nothing further. Judge excused Billy, who said “I kinda got used to sitting here.” At 2:48pm, on day 3, we were finally done with Billy testimony. And I can stop writing what this lying douchebag has to say (until the next time).

Day 3 was not over! Later in the day, it was remarked that they’re now a full day behind their original trial schedule. The rest of Wednesday featured direct questioning of Billy’s son, “Billy Junior”. However, I have to shower and head out the door, like really soon.

I’ll tell you quickly why I ran out of time this time, though. Obviously, my primary, secondary, and tertiary missions here are to cover and report on this trial. But you know, I did come all the way to Australia, and that meant an opportunity to cross certain things off my list. I really only had two tourist-y things I absolutely had to do while I was here. The first was, of course, I wanted to see an actual kangaroo. But the second was, I wanted to see an actual game of Aussie Rules Football. And the only reasonable opportunity during my stay was Wednesday night.

So if you’re mad that you have to wait until tomorrow for the rest of “Day 3”, sure you could blame me, but really, I think you should blame the Brisbane Lions womens team. Although they don’t care, cuz they crushed it

I will endeavor to get caught up on the rest of Day 3 as well as all of Day 4 tomorrow night. See you then! And as always, thanks for reading.