Mitchell v Jobst – A Low Score – A gentleman with opinions

Content Warning: This matter does contain discussions of suicide, particularly suicide in relation to bullying and difficult relationships with peers. If that’s a topic that is very personal to you, while this does discuss defamation law, it’s unlikely that anything in this is going to be worth reading this for. Please take care of you and use your discretion.

YouTuber Karl Jobst has made many and numerous videos about the lawsuit brought against him by Billy Mitchell – many of them full of bravado and mocking Billy’s claims regarding the lawsuit. So, when Karl lost the case on 1 April 2025, it went worse than the usual bad news on April Fool’s Day.¹ District Court Judge KC Barlow went into detail all the aspects he found relevant in this 118 page judgement.

Karl attempted to resume his regular content, he took the video down because he concluded that he needed to address the issue.² Karl’s fans were not happy and felt very confused and mislead about the situation, particualrly those who contributed to his GoFundMe.³

On 18 April 2025, Karl released his video explaining his side of the story – I and many other people were very unimpressed.⁴ I, in particular, was unimpressed since despite Karl apparently having spent a fortune on lawyers and been discussing this for years – he didn’t seem to understand basic concepts of law. He also seemed to downplay his own involvement in people believing this was a lawsuit about cheating at video games, and not about an allegation of using spurious lawsuits to bully someone to a point where they committed suicide.

My name is Kim, I’m not a lawyer but a law student in New Zealand who was born and raised in Queensland, Australia. Most importantly I’m not your lawyer and I’m not speaking for anyone but myself here. Please don’t interpret blog posts as personal legal advice, ever.

I’d like to talk about defamation, how it works when it escalates to an Australian court, what went wrong for Karl and how it fits into this overall situation. I will however, be adding extra information where I think it’s relevant to understanding the parties and the events.

Though I’d like to be clear, I’m going to try to avoid speculating about conversations or the relationship between Karl and his counsel – as while I understand that its terribly fun to do from a gossip perspetive, it’s not productive for genuine understanding and all of it is tied up in strict confidence. Also, we can see what they were working with:⁵

A screenshot of Discord exchange on 28 March 2025:
GhostOfYoda asks Karl: "Do you ever run scripts for videos like this past a lawyer, or is it not worth the expense?"
Karl replies: "no I don't because fuck lawyers and what they think, if I want to say something I will say it, fuck letting other people tell you what to do a lawyer will always tell you to say nothing who wants to live by that principle"

I. DEFAMATION

Often referred to by it’s sub-types, slander and libel, the general concept of defamation is a civil remedy where someone has created a negative image of you through misinformation, misrepresentation or exposing of protected information.

The general standard is that it has to be something that lowers the individual in the minds of “right thinking persons”, or more recently “the ordinary reasonable person in the shoes of the audience”. Obviously this standard shifts as society changes, with some elements such as being something other than straight being socially acceptable.

An important thing to understand about defamation is that its based on the court’s singular interpretation of a statement to a singular audience. The court won’t dispute that it could be read other ways, but is required to find a singular way it is interpreted by the theoretical “ordinary reasonable person” in the shoes of the audience, who does not have any specific knowledge to help them interpret it.

The ordinary reasonable person in this scenario is not naive, and not clueless to common knowledge in society – but also not distrustful or curious enough to investigate outside of the matter at hand. They will be aware, for example, that often when says a person is a Nazi – they mean it as a generic insult rather than a fact, but not likely aware of the history of the person being called that.

In order to be defamatory a statement must be disclosed to a significant audience, lower the opinion of the plaintiff in a way that does substantial harm, and be inherently substantially false. It also needs to not be protected by particular laws.

The requirement to do harm to your reputation can lead to scenarios where some claims are dismissed – not because there was no wrong-doing, but because the plaintiff’s reputation was so bad that the wrong-doing did no further harm. This is commonly known as being “defamation proof” and usually only applies to certain vectors of defamation.

A. USA Brand Defamation

As Karl Jobst is an Australian, living in Australia and was in Australia when he made the statements – the relevant law is generally Australian law. However, as the world in general seems to understand law specifically through how it operates in the USA, with many claiming it’s defamation laws objectively superior – it’s worth having a look.

Also, in theory, he could have argued that since Billy is an American who lives in America, they should have used American law.⁶ The USA has a specific approach to defamation which is heavily influenced by the Constitution, yes, I’m referring to the First Amendment.

Within the United States of America, defamation is essentially limited to statements of fact, rather than substantially false judgements or opinions.

The US defamation framework requires:⁷

A false statement of fact (or at least presented as fact) is made by the defendant, pertaining to the plaintiff, that would lower them in the opinion of the ordinary reasonable person; and
The statement is published or communicated to at least 1 third party; and
There was some degree of fault/negligence by the defendant; and
It did some demonstrable harm to the reputation of the plaintiff.

The fifth factor that may apply is “actual malice”. This applies when a person is a public figure. In such cases, the plaintiff must show that defendant either knew the statements were false, or was indifferent to the harm they would do if they were false. There’s not actually any element of “malice” as commonly understood required, it’s more a standard of negligence – not that it’d matter in this case.

B. Australian Brand Defamation

Australian defamation law is descended directly from the defamation laws of England & Wales, which has a much wider scope. Under this wider umbrella, there’s less focus on it being a “fact” and more on it being substantially untrue, or an opinion not justified with substantially true information.

This is not to say the opinion needs to hold up to logic, or make sense – you just need to show your working and not use any false or unsubstantiated information in that. The idea behind this is that if you show your sources, the audience of “ordinary, reasonable persons” can establish why you said something and incorporate that into their assessment of your view.⁸ The opinion that I am a mass murderer because I eat meat, for example, would be a valid opinion.

While there is no specific standard for public figures in Australia, there is the option to raise a policy argument it’s about a public concern. This essentially is you arguing it was more important to share the information because of the stakes, rather than confirm it was correct and/or substantiated. This also requires that you are upfront about what you don’t know, and report objectively. ⁹

So, Australia also doesn’t view truth as a binary or a complete defence, but rather considered statements to be justified if they are “substantially true”.¹⁰ There’s also defence of contextual truth, I’ll get to later.

So for Australia the elements we’re looking for are:

A substantially untrue, or unsubstantiated statement is made by the defendant, that would lower the opinion of the defendant in the eyes of the ordinary, reasonable person; and
The plaintiff must be clearly identified or identifiable in the statement; and
The statement is published to at least 1 other person; and
There was substantial, demonstrable harm done to the plaintiff’s reputation, by the defendant’s statement.
No lawful excuse or protections – such as privilege.

Issues of malice or the motivations and mental state of the defendant are not generally relevant to damages, ¹¹ but can exclude certain defences.¹²

C. Common Elements

Both jurisdictions cover some areas which are often believed to be unjust, or are just misunderstood by many people.

Claims are generally easy to get started, all that is required is for the plaintiff to point to a statement and provide “the sting” – that is their argument what what said, what it meant (imputations), why it’s unjust and how it harmed them. That is what the entire case becomes about. It is possible for a plaintiff to lose over an unjust statement because they used an explanation that didn’t hold up but another would have prevailed, or because the court concludes that while it harmed them – it wasn’t inherently defamatory.

Phrases like “allegedly” and “in my opinion” only provide protection where there is good faith and suitable communication in their use. You cannot rely on misrepresenting that something is alleged as though it’s credible if you know full well the only people alleging are wrong, you can’t say something is your opinion when it clearly is not your honest opinion.

The sting can be pedantic or oddly specific. It can be an argument that someone “forced” you to do something made people believe you used physical force or threats of such. It can be you say someone calling you a holocaust denier is inaccurate, and that is not the same thing as repeating opinions famously held by Nazis – it all depends on how you explain why it matters to the ordinary reasonable person.

The defendant doesn’t need to be the ultimate source of the statement, the only one to say it, the first one to say it, etc. Likewise it doesn’t have to have never harmed the plaintiff in the past, all that needs to be proved is the defendant made the statement (repeated or not) and it did harm to the plaintiff. This can include people who simply distribute the statement if they had a reasonable basis to know about and that was likely defamatory. Hence why people can sue a television network and massive platforms like YouTube make a big fuss that they don’t know anything.

Retractions, corrections and apologies do not nullify the claim – but are often a major factor when the court considers the harm and assigns damages. In considering this, the court will assess the sincerity and the timing of these efforts.

The flip side of this is that pleading a defence of truth can be risky, as if the court finds the defendant did defame people – a pleading of truth is essentially also an argument the defendant has no remorse and still believes themselves to be righteous.

Lastly the entire matter (ie the whole statement/text) must be considered when a claim of defamation is made – thus a defendant is allow to point to disclaimers, disavowals etc even if they don’t happen at the same time – just as long as they are clearly communicated in the entire publication that contains the defamatory statement.

D. Background

For the purposes of this I’ll be relying heavily on the judgement itself, which is not to say that it’s the perfect and complete record of everything – but its the most relevant one and most reliable as I’m not going to fully investigate everything from scratch. If you don’t know anything about them – this should cover everything.

William James Mitchell III (Billy, or Billy Mitchell) is a public figure in the USA who is known for setting records in arcade games like Donkey Kong and Pac Man, with a history of being accused of submitting false scores with fabricated evidence.¹³ The details of which are all complicated and not really worth going into here – other than to say many people believe them and that they relate entirely to more recent records, none of the early records that initially made him famous.

Billy Mitchell (left) at the 2014 Twin Galaxies event.
Photo courtesy of DataGod, used under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Over the years, Billy has engaged in several threats and lawsuits, one of which was against a YouTuber who went by Apollo Legend.¹⁴ After a confidential settlement, Apollo Legend gave Billy the intellectual property rights to all his videos on the topic, removed them from his channel and expressed some disappointment with the speed running community.¹⁵ Later, Apollo Legend, would take his own life – citing the ongoing stress, his disappointment with his former community and a substantial tax debt.¹⁶

Karl Jobst is a YouTuber who is known for reporting on speed running, people caught cheating at speed runs and also other areas he deems to be of interest to the community such as the concerns of The Completionist’s charity drives.¹⁷ Prior to this he did videos about how to approach/seduce/pick-up women.¹⁸ He is also has a reputation for associating with people who has reactionary views such as Notch,¹⁹ Asmongold,²⁰ RWhiteGoose,²¹ SomeOrdinaryGamers/OrdinaryGamers,
²² and convicted criminal, former lawyer, Nick Reiketa.²³

Karl Jobst’s standard profile pic.
Taken from his IMDB profile

On 26 May 2021, Karl Jobst made a video about two people which included the various accusations of cheating by Billy and, as part of it, stated that:²⁴

Billy had received a substantial settlement sum from Apollo Legend; and
This debt was a major contributor to the stress on Apollo Legend; and
Apollo Legend then went on to take his own life, due to all the stress he was under.

Billy, understood this to be an accusation that he essentially murdered Apollo Legend by way of bullying him into suicide – and publicly challenged it on 3 June 2021.²⁵ Karl would later reach out to ApolloLegend’s family to try to confirm the truth or falsity of the claim, and briefly redacted the statement from the video.²⁶ Perhaps the most embarassing aspect of this should be that the person trying to difuse the drama and act as intermediary was Keemstar, the DramaAlert guy.²⁷

On 29 July 2021, after being advised that Billy had initially requested money but waived it when it upset Apollo Legend, Karl released an “retraction” in the closing minutes of a video about Dark Souls. Notably, this retraction does not express any concern for Billy, and rather frames it as a favour to his audience to make sure they don’t have any incorrect information.²⁸

Billy did not accept this apology, and would later go on to sue Karl over the accusation regarding Apollo Legend. According to the lawsuit, this the specific statement in the matter:²⁹

He also sued YouTuber Apollo Legend for $1,000,000. I haven’t spoken about this publicly but this lawsuit ultimately ended with Apollo giving in and settling with Mitchell. He was forced to remove all his videos about Mitchell’s cheating and paid him a large sum of money. This left him deeply in debt, which required
him to find extra work, but with his ongoing health issues this was all too much of a burden and he ultimately took his own life. Not that Billy Mitchell would ever care, though. In fact, when Billy Mitchell thought Apollo died earlier he expressed joy at the thought. The lawsuit against Apollo was just as frivolous
as the rest and Apollo definitely would have won in court, but again he was extremely ill and couldn’t handle the ongoing stress.

The five elements that Billy alleged were defamation, or the sting:³⁰

Apollo Legend had to pay Billy an unreasonable sum of money, such that it put immense stress on him; and
This debt as a major contributing factor in Apollo Legend’s decision to end his own life; and
Billy had essentially bullied Apollo Legend into suicide; and
Billy was the main cause, or at least a major cause, of Apollo Legend’s death; and
Specifically it was Billy’s conduct that lead to Apollo Legend’s suicide.

You may be thinking that’s really just 3 things:

Billy made Apollo Legend pay money when he didn’t; and
Billy was ultimately a major cause of Apollo’s suicide, when he wasn’t; and
Specifically that it was Billy’s use of frivilous litigation that drove Apollo to suicide (when it didn’t).

And that’s pretty much how the court read it as well.³¹ But it never hurts to make sure you’re spelling things out clearly.

Throughout the course of the lawsuit, Karl would continue to make many videos about Billy which were both unkind to him, and have now aged poorly.

Screenshot of Karl Jobst's "Cheater Billy Mitchell Is Running Scared" video, which uses a photo of Billy and "HE IS AFRAID".

E. Relevant Defences

The first defence raised in the judgement is the idea that Billy didn’t prove that Karl had published the video to a wide audience.³² He does this, remarkably, after conceeding that the original video had more than half a million views – with a large part of it being that Billy can’t prove everyone listened up to the 20 minute mark where the statement occurred.³³ The implication there is self-evident, defamation needs to be shared.

Retraction can’t defeat a claim, but it can mitigate damage – remarkably, Karl also submitted the stats for his retraction video.³⁴

Meaning of the statement, is discussed, with a strong emphasis on particular placement of words like “and” and “but” to argue that these were sequential yet not necessarily connected events.³⁵

In his video on the topic, Karl leans into the defence of contextual truth which is an evolving defence in the field of defamation, particular in Australia.³⁶The crux of it is that in the event that there are multiple claims, and that when those claims are considered the claims in the sting do no further harm to the plaintiff, the court may find they or the overall text are “contextually true”

The intended use of the defence, it’s the protect people from defamation orders over what ultimately turn out to be trivial mistakes or things that they can’t prove, but are ultimately consistent with the rest of the true story.

In Queensland the contextual truth defence is spelled out in section 26 of the Defamation Act 2005.³⁷

26 Defence of contextual truth

(1)It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—

(a)the matter carried 1 or more imputations that are substantially true (contextual imputations); and

(b)any defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains that are not contextual imputations and are also carried by the matter do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

(2)The contextual imputations on which the defendant may rely to establish the defence include imputations of which the plaintiff complains.

It is, on the face of it, a pretty simple test:

The text/matter makes some claims which are true, and do substantial enough harm that the sting does “no further harm“;
Those claims which are substantially true can be the ones being raised by the plaintiff (ie you can combine it with a conventional truth defence).

To the best of my knowledge (I study law in New Zealand, not Australia), the leading case for this kind of defence in Queensland is Mizikovsy v Queensland Television,³⁸ which was an appeal from the Supreme Court by a builder who felt defamed by a report on television. Some important elements that it establishes are:

While the defendant may use the plaintiff’s own statements, they are not limited to those which are raised as defamatory nor do they need to confirm other statements they use are defamatory.³⁹
The term “futher harm” does not require an additional injury to the reptuation of the plaintiff, only that it somehow worsen their reputation.⁴⁰
You cannot be ask the court to compare apples with oranges, the “audience” for the statements must be considered to be the same one with the substantially true statements and the other statements.⁴¹
With a wide spread publication, the audience perspective to be considered is “the ordinary reasonable viewer” – an objective standard that relies on people having ordinary information and ordinary sensibilities.⁴²

This case wasn’t cited in the judgement, but it didn’t need to be because nothing in it couldn’t be cited from more recent and analogous cases. I felt it was worth mentioning, because a lot of the primers for lay people often use absurd examples where the untrue imputation isn’t really actionable (eg, defendant is a serial killer, but doesn’t have bad breath – as claimed). It gets more complicated when the statements are all actionable, and different in nature.

F. Analysis

The first three defences felt very routine, like the law firm felt if they didn’t try them then wouldn’t be exhausting all their options. It’s all pretty standard things to plead: “We didn’t do it, if we did do it – we didn’t do it as you said, and we did do it as you said we did – it didn’t really harm you.”

The attempt to dispute publication was doomed to fail, since making these videos was Karl’s job at the time and he reached a level where sponsorships were coming in. To argue that it wasn’t wide spread after over a half-a-million views or to try to claim people didn’t get that far was arguably just a waste of everyone’s time.

It also was an own goal in that Karl essentially argued that nobody watched 20 minutes to get to the bit where he defamed Billy, but everyone definitely kept watching after the first 28 minutes and then through a complete change of topic. Not that it mattered much, since the retraction was pretty flippant, unapologetic, vitriolic and so didn’t really do much to mitigate harm.

The meaning of the words defence might have have carried some more weight if the same emphasis on particular words in the presentation, but as it was I agree with the judge that was hard to believe the regular audience member wouldn’t understand it to mean what Billy alleged it meant.

1. Contextual Truth and the character of Billy Mitchell

As above, a key component of the contextual truth defence is that your true claims should be so damning that the remaining sting does no further harm. In this area, I feel that Karl’s defence fails by a wide margin. In specific execution, it hinges upon the idea that since Billy built a reputation in video game records, and that been greatly harmed by the cheating claims – he must have practically no reputation left, and what he had as must have been destroyed the leaking of a private exchange where he tastelessly expresses joy at the claim Apollo Legend died.

I do not think it is controversial to say the “ordinary reasonable viewer” would consider bullying people into suicide to be much worse than anything else alleged to have happened with Donkey Kong, Pac Man, high score boards or anything else that Billy was involved in because it involved the loss of a human life. It is not a trivial detail nor is it generally consistent with cheating at video games and being prone to lodging lawsuits.

This led to a weird situation where Karl’s counsel appears to have spent a wildly disproportionate amount of time trying to prove that Billy has been dishonest about everything. The idea presumably being to claim that Billy had no professional or personal reputation left to lose. The way they did this is quite baffling to me, as many come across as them just arguing for arguments sake.

Billy claimed that Karl did no monetary harm to him, but for some reason they argued about this and which events that Billy was paid to attend (versus those he simply attended for personal satisfaction). ⁴³ Not sure how this was supposed to help.

Then they argued if Billy was lying when he made some incorrect statements in the Twin Galaxies case… which isn’t really relevant to his capacity to bully another human being to death.⁴⁴Then they argued that Billy was lying liar because of the tape submitted to Twin Galaxies.⁴⁵ Then that Billy couldn’t attribute the stress injuries to both Karl and Twin Galaxies… not sure that’s how medicine works.⁴⁶ In any case, it doesn’t seem any expert witnesses were called on this.

Then they argued that Billy said the stress from Karl was “minimal” during the Twin Galaxies issue – and Billy explained he was referring specifically to the high scores issues – not the accusation of bullying someone into suicide.⁴⁷ Notably, Twin Galaxies was not accusing him of that… so checks out.

What’s most baffling about this though is that it’s supposed to try to prove that Billy is a bad and unreliable witness – but really what it did was give Billy the opportunity to show he was intelligent, capable of self-control, articulate, willing to admit to mistakes, and say his piece about a lot of issues. All for no real benefit to Karl.

It gives me, and quite possibly the judge, the impression that they were more interesting is sledging Billy for personal satisfaction rather than addressing the actual topic of the lawsuit.

This was particularly a bad move given that Karl was still making videos throughout the trial where he referred Billy as insane and evil, and this was not lost on the judge.⁴⁸ All this essentially created a valid suspicion that Karl was less interested in justice, and more interested in righteousness – and that put an unfortunate stink on some of his own statements.⁴⁹

2. The Witnesses

In addition to cross-examining Billy, Karl’s counsel also called forward a collection of witnesses to testify that Billy was indeed a bad person – and I feel this too was a mis-step that harmed his defence of contextual truth. Of course, Billy also brought witnesses to tell the court he was a great person – but that was kind of expected given he doesn’t deserve the bad reputation.

Essentially both sides seemed to have called in only character witnesses, including (hilariously) MoistCr1TiKaL – who essentially admitted he didn’t know anything about Billy Mitchell other than cheating and Cartoon Network drama.

(Sadly he is not referred to by that handle, but by his real name and also by his YouTube handle, “@penguinz0”. So the term “MoistCr1tiKal” is not a permanent part of Queensland law. Missed opportunity. Missed opportunity.)

None of these people are actually good authorities on Billy’s reputation because, with the exception of one guy who owns a pinball parlor in Brisbane – they don’t engage in business where they monitor for reputations of people like Billy.⁵⁰

There’s also an interesting quirk in that it appears that Karl’s counsel did not inquire about Billy’s reputation with any of Billy’s witnesses.⁵¹ Now, part of this could be because they were apparently all family and associates of Billy’s, but still it leaves open to speculation what they might have said.

To my thinking, in this kind of situation the only types of witnesses that would have been helpful to supply were ones that could speak to the different kinds of harm in terms of reputation – public relations managers, publicity agents, and such.

Neither side seems to have opted to call for an expert witness on this matter, but it’s also possible that neither side’s counsel could find a suitable person who’d was interested in delivering evidence.

Expert witnesses are hired, not compelled, and are generally very expensive but also compelled to tell the whole truth, warts and all. They are, therefore, a risky proposition in cases where the truth is hard to measure, or explain.

The honest impression that I have at this point is that Karl’s counsel was under the impression that everyone hates Billy as much as Karl does, and that YouTube drama is indicative of the the wider population’s opinions. There doesn’t seem to have been any real exploration on what a regular, unconnected person thinks of Billy.

3. Judge’s analysis

The judge, being a fastidious and thorough man, went through the entire analysis step-by-step – however I’ll skip to telling you the quick version.

He agreed all Karl’s allegations that Billy cheated, used litigation to silence people, that he expressed joy at the death of Apollo Legend, etc, etc were all substantially true and this all did contribute to Billy having a negative reputation. Unfortunately for Karl, this was a negative reputation in a different “sector”.

That is to say – even if nobody trusts Billy’s claims about any of his high scores, that aspect of his persona would be entirely separate from if they believe he’s the kind of person who causes the deaths of others. That’s a very different thing.

The only one that was really relevant was the one linked to death – the imputation that Billy had expressed joy at the idea Apollo Legend was dead.⁵² Unsurprisingly, the judge concluded this was less likely to be harmful than the imputation that Billy was in fact the cause of Apollo’s death, and had hounded him to death through his actions.⁵³

This is, to my opinion, pretty self evident.

4. Other elements

Now, in his video – Karl goes into many areas that not really discussed in the judgement because (presumably) the judge did not consider them significant. Most of these elements show a misunderstanding of how civil law works in Australia.

He rants at length about how Billy never proved that people specifically believed that Karl was the source of the comments saying Billy killed Apollo Legend. He states they just pointed to comments and failed to show a casual link.⁵⁴ That shows a profound ignorance of two elements:

The Reptition Rule. Karl doesn’t need to be the originator of the bad take, he just needs to have magnified it a substantial amount. You only have to publish the defamatory statement, not invent it.
The Burden of Evidence in Civil Court. While the standard in Criminal Court is “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, in civil it’s “Balance of possibilities”. Essentially, where there is a matter that needs to be decided as true, or not true, the most likely outcome is used – even if it’s only a teeny tiny bit more likely.

And Karl buddy… this was from your own video… buddy…⁵⁵

kirkshanghai 10 months ago (edited)
This may be common knowledge, bu the same guy that played a big part in bringing Billy Mitchell's cheating to the limelight (Karl Jobst) is the same guy who teamed up with Mutahar (Someordinarygamers) and hepled expose the Completionist's charity fraud a few weeks ago. I really respect him and I hope he continues to expose frauders. He's an absolute legend.
(18 replies, highlighted reply)
Sinknik64 10 months ago
Speaking of 'legends', don't forget about Apollo Legend, the guy who first exposed Billy Mitchell and was driven to suicide shrotly there after. This situation has been going on for a while now. — Karl… you had editorial control…

He also wants to litigate whether there comments or a reputation against Billy before, and buddy… the time to do that was in court, not after you lost.⁵⁶ And again, if you’re a YouTuber who gets sponsorship deals and shouted out in comments like this, it’s kind of on you to prove that someone you don’t have the clout the sponsors and commentors think you do.

Karl also continues to try to lean into the “I never said specifically he caused the death” defence, which is pretty weird given how often the term “imputation” appears in the court documents and so must have been shown to Karl.⁵⁷ He continues to insist that there is no possibility of interpretation other than how he objectively wants it to go down, which is a bad stance for mitigating damages and a worse one for maintaining public credibility.

He also makes a big deal that Billy posted that he would not accept a retraction,⁵⁸ but this is also pretty standard in early stages of defamation. While you might not be open to it while your blood is hot, courts encourage everyone to try to cool down and settle out of court. Queensland certainly does.⁵⁹

This also didn’t come up in the proceedings, but also Karl’s retraction was utter dogshit and arguably added more defamatory imputations with statements like “despite Billy’s best attempts” where Apollo’s family had stated Billy seemed mostly interested in justice, and trying to sell up he had “very good evidence” when it was literally just gossip – including from a guy so reliable both posts were downvoted to negatives on Reddit.⁶⁰

Karl kind of acknowledges the that his standard of evidence has changed since then – but notably, this is the first time he acknowledges it was bad evidence – but he still acts like the retraction was perfect and would have resolved the case if a retraction could do so.⁶¹ This is just nonsense – particularly since Karl is well aware that settlements often include an offer of money as well as retractions/apologies, etc.

Later he also weirdly doubles down on the idea that expressing joy over the death of Apollo was worst than the idea of bullying him to suicide – framing it as Billy was already a villain for the defamation lawsuit.⁶² This fundamentally shows both a lack of concern for anything but his own stance. Not a good approach when the standard is “ordinary reasonable person”.

The court was not going to find that Billy had no right to a defamation lawsuit that settled and was never resolved. The court was not going to litigate whether Billy was a jerk for doing it or if Apollo’s personal circumstance should have made him exhempt from a defamation action… particularly when Apollo’s own family said Billy seemed more interested in “justice” than money, and only ever tried to get Apollo to cover his costs. ⁶³

The words from Apollo’s own family re: a settlement payment

It’s not difficult to see why the judge concluded Karl was a man who was unwilling to change his opinion, as well as a man lacking of tact and diplomacy.⁶⁴

Lastly Karl also seems to do this weird bit where he promised his audience details as he progress (but not before he used them in court), but the press assumed it was about cheating because of the court documents – which means he’d already filed his defence at the time.⁶⁵ So there was nothing secret, just he decided not to mention it because… reasons?

The only part of it that makes any sense is the bit where he explains that he was happy to let it continue as it cemented the real harm to Billy’s reputation was as a cheater. But this fails to make sense on two fronts:

The defamation claim is at the time of the filing, so if things changed during the trial the damages might change but Karl would still be on the hook for how they were at the time; and
The standard is any further damage, not “way worse damage” – this is very much comparing apples and oranges.

Ultimately it just seems Karl didn’t feel he had a duty to be honest with his audience, and that he was mostly just enjoying people talking smack about Billy – so he stopped talking about the lawsuit and kept talking shit about Billy.

G. Conclusion re: Defamation

Regardless of what you think of Billy as a video game player, or a person, his claim had merit and the defences were not substantial enough to overcome the initial action simply because bullying someone into suicide is very different to, and widely agreed to be worse than, falsely claiming a high score on an old video game or making a private statement you’re happy someone’s dead.

Sure, Billy was kind of an asshole, and did use litigation to silence critics, and there are a lot of people who do not like him. But there is a serious difference between being the kind of guy who exploits wealth and the legal system to get his way, and being the person who bullied a young person to death.

Hence my emphasis on “no further harm”, because it’s very difficult to argue that even if there were 100% consensus that Billy was a cheater at video games, had forfeited the right to brag about his undisputed records, etc – it’s impossible to imagine how “and he bullied a YouTuber to suicide” wouldn’t make things worse for his reputation.

As it is, Billy’s cheating is only really of serious interest to a particular demographic who are very emotionally invested in video gaming accomplishments. So the contextual truth defence is even more absurd when you consider the “ordinary reasonable person” likely thinks arcade game high scores are a silly thing to get this emotionally invested in – or at least a judge is probably going to assume they do.

In this kind of scenario the only logical response was the one that Karl has made it very clear that he’s not interested in – a humble, sincere apology that addresses the hurt and tries to mend the reputation, accompanied with a settlement offer. It might not have prevented it going to trial, but it would have gone a long way to nullifying the damages.

In deciding the damages, the judge looked at a variety of similar cases and concluded that while Billy’s request for defamation for non-economic loss was a bit ambitious, if he’d asked for more on the aggravated he might have received them.⁶⁶ So yeah, Karl’s behaviour was seen to be objectively bad and essentially doubling down via his follow up statements and videos.

Notably, I’m pretty sure that this would have been the same outcome even if we used the USA approach to defamation as the “original sin” of the claim was that Billy demanded a large sum of money from Apollo Legend – which factually was not true and created the knock on that it caused the suicide (which it couldn’t), etc. Karl only took steps to verify after publication and clearly didn’t care at the time (ie, actual malice).

From there stems all the harm of him doubling down on it and presenting the overall narrative. So sorry 1st Amendment, not even you could save Karl.

H. Appeal?

In his weird explantory video, Karl said that he was considering an appeal but didn’t elaborate on why – I doubt that’s was possible, the timeframe is 28 days,⁶⁷ which has already passed (even counting the public holiday for ANZAC Day). Extensions are possible – but generally if you need to beg for more time to file your appeal, it’s not a good sign.

During a trial court, the expectation is for both sides to put their best arguments forward and to live with their mistakes – everyone always has ideas of what they could have or should have done better in hindsight. Appeals are only available where there is an error of law, or a miscarriage of justice.

Things like what the court was presented with as evidence, how it was interpreted and understood, etc are generally all bundled together as “facts” and are not up for debate unless you can show an objectively critical issue (such as a key piece of evidence was later found to be fabricated or completely misunderstood by the court in a way that impacted the instructions to the jury).

Whether you agree with the judge’s assessment of the people, including Billy’s credibility, the judgement is extremely thorough and explains each area of law and explain each step in detail. He is very aware that both parties are very strong personalities, and accounts for it.

It’s also possible that a different strategy could have changed the outcome for Karl. Maybe if he’d leaned into the argument that the opinion was already commonly held about Billy, that many ordinary people consider these records to be important, and relied upon research by expert witnesses to support the claims, he could have avoided or mitigated the damages. That’s the risk you take when you choose a strategy in civil court – no save scumming, no do overs, you live with the outcome of your chosen approach.

That’s why the vast majority of civil litigation ends with a settlement, because ultimately once you roll those dice you’re bound by the outcome.

It’s not impossible there’s an error of law, I’m certainly not going to claim to be an expert on it. But it seems unlikely – and if Karl’s counsel can’t spot it immediately, it’s a bad sign since they’ve presumably being researching this stuff for years now.

As for a miscarriage of justice, losing because the court disagrees with you about what’s reasonable is the standard risk that you run with a defamation case. Again, you choose your strategy, you fight your battle and you live with the outcome.

Even if Billy is the monster Karl wants to believe he is, monsters are still entitled to justice under the system – you don’t forfeit all rights when you fake a high score in a video game, or send a private message saying you’ll be thrilled if someone who you didn’t like is dead.

II. KARL’S COMMUNICATIONS

Karl has suffered a huge amount of backlash for this, and not just because he made Billy Mitchell look good. Most of the people who were aware of this case were under the belief that it was not about Apollo Legend at all, but rather about whether Billy cheated at old video games.

A. Karl’s Stance

Karl kind of accepts that he’s responsible for this, but not in a very forthcoming way – he kept putting out many and numerous videos about Billy, including ones encouraging people to donate to his GoFundMe – and he linked to news that made it seem like the case was about video games and Billy being dishonest.⁶⁸

He apparently did mention in one video that Apollo’s suicide was relevant,⁶⁹ but that was – by his own admission, downplayed. Karl claims he downplayed it because it would have interferred with his defence – but doesn’t elaborate on how. He also claims it was “too dangerous” because of risk Apollo’s name carried and the danger he’d be accused of repeating the false statement.⁷⁰

None of that really makes sense, and is in fact, quite confusing given how flippant Karl’s retraction was. The overall impression I get is that Karl hoped that if it kept getting worse for Billy, and he didn’t admit it was about his incorrect assertion regarding Apollo Legend. Which is ironic, since Karl insists the other reason he didn’t mention it is felt the real reason Billy was suing him was because of all the reporting on his cheating.⁷¹

B. Karl’s Audience

Some people who gave Karl money for his defence, in the GoFundMe, feel rather betrayed and misled. Karl himself claims the funds were the used for the intended purpose (legal fees)⁷² and admits that he wasn’t very clear on the GoFundMe.⁷³

But strictly speaking, the funds weren’t even actually used for the purpose the original fundraiser was used for (fending off the additional lawsuits from Billy). Karl weirdly claims he was so overwhelmed he didn’t realize the overall lawsuit was about Apollo Legend,⁷⁴ but like… what!?

Does not compute. I cannot imagine how dismissive you have to be of the situation to forget what the key point of the lawsuit was.

Sorry Karl, but generally it’s agreed that if you’re going to benefit off people (either through YouTube traffic, or donations) you owe them a duty of candor that overrules your own enjoyment at other people suffering due to their misunderstanding.

Whether it was illegal or not isn’t a question I can answer, and it’s one that may not be worth exploring if you’re only interested in outcomes.

C. Is any action available?

Theoretically, in Australia, a donor could make an argument that this was a breach of Consumer Law relating to fundraising – however the hurdle would be to prove that Karl was being deceitful or careless. Being sued is pretty stressful, and Karl is not an expert on these matters so he’d have a lot of leeway to claim it wasn’t deception or callousness, just human error.

It’s possible it could get through on negligence, but that’s a long road as first you’d have to establish in clear terms what duty he had (ie specifics on how much information he should have disclosed, and when and how he should have disclosed it) and there’s also the issue of expense. While $200,000 is a lot of money to an individual – the individual donations are nowhere near the kind of money you’d need to warrant court action – and you’d be expected to go through the complaint process first.

Ideas like class actions are also unlikely to be viable because:

They’re a lot of work and often cost millions in fees; and
They’re further complicated if litigants are spread across the world, so may have different legal rights depending on their own legislation; and
It’s unlikely that Karl’s going to have anything left to pay back with after Billy is is done seeking payment on the defamation judgement.

Under Queensland law, if Karl doesn’t appeal and doesn’t pay Billy, Billy has the right to enforce the judgement through bankruptcy – at which point everything Karl has that’s not protected would be liquidated and used to pay creditors. In all likelihood, Karl will be bankrupt and the majority of funds distributed before anyone even finds a law firm willing to take the case.

GoFundMe is going to be bulletproof and protected through passing on culpability to the people hosting the GoFundMe. The standard to prove them liable will be quite high – as you would have to essentially show they should have known that Karl was misleading people (moreso than his own fanbase should have).

GoFundMe have capacity for much bigger fundraisers, and have doubtlessly weathered much bigger storms. It’s also way, way too late to bring to their attention that Karl was not a good communicator or his entry on the page is incomplete.

III. THE APOLLO LEGEND STORY

So, there’s a lot going on with the Apollo Legend story, and how its been discussed. A key part of the judge’s assessment was that when Apollo Legend left his final message – he did name some people, and none of them were Billy Mitchell. One of them was a person relevant to this mess.

A. The Anti-Billy Crew on Apollo Legend

That person did make a “The Downfall of Apollo Legend” video, which the other contributed too – and Karl was thanked as helping with the research for.⁷⁵ Karl denied his intention in it, and downplayed in own involvement.⁷⁶ However, based on a screenshot from Discord, it appears Karl also considered doing one of his own in August 2020. ⁷⁷

Also his video contains this (unironically, as the words of the video creator expressing his own opinion):⁷⁸

A cropped screencap to show the captions: "Apollo is vindictive and unapologetic. Convincing Apollo he is wrong after he has already made up:"

Karl doesn’t critize statements like that, he just sort of dusts his hands and walks off – so it seems to indicate Karl didn’t have that much love for Apollo Legend beyond as a cudgel to swing at Billy.

There’s also another guy who seems to have a huge emotional investment in all this, so much so he wrote a huge screed insulting the judge repeated for not taking the simple stand that Karl is honest, and Billy is not, so Karl should win all the marbles.⁷⁹

This appears to be the same guy that Karl presented as a source of “good evidence” on the topic of if Apollo Legend had to pay Billy or not.⁸⁰ I’m not convinced they can be trusted as an authority on law, or anything else for that matter.

Around the same time, Apollo Legend did have a GoFundMe to sue Billy Mitchell,⁸¹ and when that fell through he essentially felt compelled to return the $20,000-ish funds raised. Apparently this was a slow, tedious and manual process for him.⁸²

He did not receive a terrible amount of sympathy from the community on that, or laters posts on his channel. No surprise Karl isn’t receiving much either.

Later, on the post by Apollo where he announced he was backing out from the litigation from Billy – the top voted comment is a self-congratulatory reply by Karl Jobst – addressing not Apollo, but his community.⁸³

A screenshot of a YouTube community post comment by Karl Jobst (@karljobst) 4 years ago:
"Dont worry guys, I will never back down."
It has 4.4k thumbs up and 176 replies

Now, I never knew about Apollo Legend while he was alive, but from what I can see it seems he was a somewhat polarizing individual in his community who’d made a game of antagonizing Billy Mitchell – and when it turned sour, many in his communit were just as willing to use him for entertainment as they were with Billy.

B. What was all this really all about?

It seems to me, as relatively new observer, that Karl and some others in the community processed the passing of Apollo Legend by project all guilt and anger onto Billy Mitchell – to the extent they started inventing details to the confidential settlement, and this weird narrative of “Nobody is to blame, but we will say Billy caused it”.

And don’t get me wrong, the settlement was pretty brutal (though not perverse). Billy walked away with the intellectual property rights to all the videos, a general non-disparagement agreement, and a penalty of $25,000 US a pop any time that Apollo breached the agreement.⁸⁴ Billy was not fucking around and was 100% sick his shit.

But, that also, to me, suggests that Apollo was not as bulletproof as Karl claims – that his video probably had flaws and quite possible an angle that Billy’s lawyers would have been able to exploit to secure an outcome. Apollo certainly didn’t have a reputation for being infallible, and I don’t trust the word of people who see Billy through a red haze.

Weirdly, Karl also seems to diagonally double down in this video with talking about how he was sure the lack of income from Apollo Legend stopping making videos, the stress of the lawsuit, etc would have impacted him but never mentions how he and the named parties might have contributed.

There is also this weird kind of trend in there, where there is a constant restating that nobody is to blame for Apollo’s decision (to end his life) but Apollo. That personally doesn’t sit right with me – both because it is incredibly insensitive to frame it as though it was a rational, thought out decision – and because it seems to be a sort of backstop protection.

Like it feels it’s there in anticipation of people pointing out his own involvement, and a general lack of sympathy for people who take their own lives due to unfortunate circumstances rather than address that these events are tragic and often due to many factors outside of the person’s control all coming together at once. Apollo had been in a lot of conflicts and humiliations in the past, but it seems this time everything negative came together to a degree he couldn’t handle.

The tragedy of Apollo doesn’t seem to be, as Karl tries to portray, a young man on the overcoming adversity and then forced into poverty by the dreaded tyrant Billy Mitchell III – but rather a troubled young man who was overwhelmed when he suffered and humiliating setback, found the community didn’t care about him the way he’d hoped they would, and for likely many other reasons we will probably never know – took his own life.

That tragic events rarely have a single cause, or a person you can point to as the one responsible for it is one of many important life lessons that these people seem unwilling to engage with. In this case, that seems to be at least one factor driving their hatred of Billy Mitchell.

Another important lesson is you don’t have to be directly responsible to realize that maybe some of things you did were shitty and you should probably reflect on them rather than rush to find a scapegoat. You can choose to be better at any time.

That and well, they also seem to be extremely emotionally invested in the integrity of video game high scores and speed runs – which is a niche topic and so they’re probably more than a little bit bitter than most normies don’t treat them with the same reverence that they do more mainstream sports records.

IV. THE SILVER LINING

Since this has been going on, various YouTubers and other Internet denizens have been frantically trying to piece together what has happened. One of the from Karl fans who has been doing a better job, LUS, has been going fairly in depth (he’s a lawyer) that apparently on top of the $400,000-ish that Karl is in the hole following Billy’s damages and costs, Karl may have spent $600,000 on legal fees. ⁸⁵ (Tony if you’re reading this, I swear this is how we do citations in New Zealand, kinda.)

Essentially it seems that his whole endeavour was a long and painful way to set roughly 1 million dollars Australian on fire. $200,000 from people who donated, and many of them feel deceived and let down.

So how is that a silver lining?

Well it’s possible that a lot of, or even most of the rest of that money, came from Notch. YouTuber LUS who has been making an admirable effort to puzzle out the entire matter, well beyond the scope of this post, has apparently found some indicators that Notch agreed to front Karl the legal fees.⁸⁶

So, given all the above – there is a possibility that there’s one person who’d be in a position to go after Karl to get their money back – and it’s Notch. If he hurries, he might even be able to get a claim in a bankruptcy (especially if Karl gets that appeal in, somehow).

For many people, especially those in Karl’s audience and those who’ve been disgusted with the company he keeps, that’ll make for great entertainment. Which is all they ever really wanted out of Karl and his associates. Frankly, it’s also the bed he made for himself given his choice in associates, his attitude toward others and his bravado over the years.

If you don’t like Billy – take comfort in knowing that Billy is also unlikely to get paid his full judgement amount even if he bankrupts Karl. The process is expensive andits unlikely Karl has a bank acount with that much just sitting in there for a rainy day. Billy seems to be enjoying his moment in the Sun and may get some extra sauce sales.⁸⁷

A screenshot of posts on X made by BIlly Mitchell (@BillyPacman) on 23 April 2025:
"Hello you absolute virgins"
(Billy is quote posting from a video of Karl from his days as a Pick Up Artist influencer)
Beneath it Billy has replied: "rickeyssauce.com discount code "JOBST" for 10% off!"

Oh yeah, Billy has a condiments business – that’s how he was able to pay for all of this – there’s not a lot of money in playing old video games, which is why he didn’t sue Karl for loss of income, just non-monetary damages. That in itself kind of shows that the general public did not think of him as completely dishonest individual who could do no right and not be trusted on any statement.

Also it seems Billy is trying to encourage the Completionist to sue Karl too.⁸⁸

A screenshot an X post by Billy Mitchell (@BillyPacman) on 24 April 2025:
"If theCompletionist sues Karl Jobst for defamation, he will win."

I don’t want to comment on the odds of success or failure there, as that saga has been kind of complicated.⁸⁹ but it seems a bad idea as I’m not sure there’s going to be much point to that if Billy follows through with enforcement – and the limitations period has probably already lapsed.⁹⁰

Mutahar (SomeOrdinaryGamers/OrdinaryGamers) immediately started distancing himself from Karl, and agreeing that Karl fucked up and wasn’t clear to his audience.⁹¹

A screenshot of the video at 7:37, where Mutahar is looking thoughtful and concerned and the captions read "like that unfortunately I really can see the defamation made"

The comments include a bunch of people insisting that he needs to go in harder on Karl here, and not give him the kid gloves but rather go after him as a fraud like he did with the Completionist. They want blood. Time will tell if he feels he needs to give it to them.

Similarly, Asmongold covered in his stream and despite his best attempts to tell people he likes Karl and he wants to try to be on Karl’s side – the chat hates Karl, and was full of people demanding he call him a liar and a scumbag.⁹²

So it seems that for now, the war will rage on between entirely voluntary combatants who all have given the public various reasons to dislike them. Like a weird version of Smash Bros played on social media, YouTube and in court rooms – the games continue and the blood flows.

And maybe, just maybe, some of these people can be a terrible warning to aspiring content creators and influencers about the dangers of associating with reactioanry influencers, taking shortcuts and then never fixing problems. More importantly, they may learn not to blindly trust these kinds of people and definitely not to give them money for unclear reasons.

1
Mitchell v Jobst [2025] QDC 41
2
Karl Jobst (First week of April 2025, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3ltptWa0xfrDweghW94Acg/community?lb=Ugkx2SvAB2ecQ1pF_U3gXh8maSs7XbXdmxhy
3
Karl Jobst Karl Jobst Legal Defence Fund (4 November 2022, GoFundMe) https://www.gofundme.com/f/karl-jobst-legal-defence-fund
4
Karl Jobst I Lost (18 April 2025, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1XBqeAQ3nI
5
geniusdude69 Fuck the lawyers I paid for with YOUR money (4 April 2025, Reddit) https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1jqs49z/fuck_the_lawyers_i_paid_for_with_your_money/
6
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld, AU), s 11
7
Legal Information Institute defamation (Cornell Law School) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
8
Defamation Act, s 31
9
Defamation Act, s 29 – 29A
10
Defamation Act s 25
11
Defamation Act, s 36
12
Defamation Act, s 24
13
Mitchell v Jobst, above n 1, at [1] – [3], [9] – [12]
14
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [12] – [13]
15
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [13] – [14]
16
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [71] – [73]
17
Karl Jobst (Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/@karljobst/videos
18
Karl Jobst Pick Up Artist (Streamable) https://streamable.com/yysisw
19
Tony Gou (as “LUS”) Did Karl Jobst Run Up Legal Bill v Billy Mitchell | Well over $600,000 (21 April 2025, Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50L8hnrLwNA
20
gravityVT DarkViper confirms he abruptly cut off Karl Jobst because Karl took a sponsorship with a copmany co-owned by Asmongold (13 April 2024, Reddit) https://www.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1c2s888/darkviper_confirms_he_abruptly_cut_off_karl_jobst/
21
(discussing the N-word in Discord) (20 August 2020) https://imgur.com/6UfWxK1
22
SomeOrdinaryGamers (YouTube Fandom Wiki) https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/SomeOrdinaryGamers
xander_kahn Mutahar’s wife (Doejenggles – cohost of @realweirdsickos) claims that accusations of her neonazism are baseless – So this is a screen recording of her endoring the use of “aryan” and “nazi” in reference to hereself (15 May 2024, Reddit) https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1crqirx/mutahars_wife_doejenggles_cohost_of/
23
Karl Jobst (3 November 2020, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3ltptWa0xfrDweghW94Acg/community?lb=UgzWJIDOW88YsnJJZOp4AaABCQ
24
Mitchell v Jobst, above n 1, at [82] and [86]
25
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [91] – [92]
26
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [96] – [98]
27
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [94]
28
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [107]
29
Mitchell v Jobsts, above, at [15] – [16]
30
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [136]
31
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [148] – [173]
32
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [110]
33
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [109]
34
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [135]
35
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [150] – [152]
36
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 13:30
37
Defamation Act 2005 (Qld, AU), s 26
38
Mizikovsky v Queensland Television Limited & Ors [2013] QCA 681
39
Mizikovsy, above, at [21] – [24]
40
Mizikovsy, above, at [26] – [27]
41
Mizikovsy, above, at [30]
42
Mizikovsy, above, at [31] – [34]
43
Mitchell v Jobst, above n 1, at [192] – [193]
44
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [194] – [195]
45
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [196] – [197]
46
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [198] – [203]
47
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [204] – [206]
48
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [217] – [218], and [228]
49
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [235] – [238]
50
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [255] – [259]
51
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [376]
52
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [411] – [414]
53
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [415] – [420]
54
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 25:15
55
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 25:30
56
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 26:10
57
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 5:30 – 6:45
58
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 9:30
59
Defamation Act, s 12 – 20
60
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 10:30 and 3:00
61
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 12:30
62
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 15:45
63
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 9:45
64
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [74]
65
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at 16:00
66
Mitchell v Jobst, above, at [537] – [560]
67
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld, AU), r 748
68
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 26:50
69
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 21:20
70
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 25:05 and 26:10
71
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 24:20
72
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 20:00
73
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 20:50
74
Karl Jobst I Lost, above, at 20:30
75
EZscape Speedruns The Downfall of Apollo Legend (7 Oct 2020, Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtAp64SxmGY
76
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 4:00
77
ProbablyNotOnline Karl calling the kettle black (3 April 2025, Reddit) https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/1jpzoz9/karl_calling_the_kettle_black/
78
EZscape Speedruns The Downfall of Apollo Legend, above n 75, at 6:45
79
ersatz_cats Judge Ken Barlow is the most gullible man alive (16 April 2025, PerfectPacMan.com) https://perfectpacman.com/2025/04/16/judge-ken-barlow/
80
Karl Jobst I Lost, above n 4, at 3:20
81
Benjamin Smith (Apollo Legend) Stop Billy Mitchell! (8 May 2020, GoFundMe, Archived: 10 May 2020, Internet Archive) https://web.archive.org/web/20200510231307/https://www.gofundme.com/f/stopbillymitchell
82
Apollo Legend (August 2020, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5t8u4kpE0WvLxkPWIp8n-g/community?lb=UgzF5G9x2U2_Oe0EjCZ4AaABCQ
83
Karl Jobst (August 2020, Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5t8u4kpE0WvLxkPWIp8n-g/community?lb=UgytIJZJO5mDz_6ZhEp4AaABCQ&lc=UgwILsHppKHA2-aO1Yl4AaABAg
84
Mitchell v Jobst, above n 1, at [86]
85
Tony Gou (as “LUS”) Did Karl Jobst Run Up Legal Bill v Billy Mitchell, above n 19
86
Tony Gou (as “LUS”) Did Karl Jobst Run Up Legal Bill v Billy Mitchell, above n 19
87
Billy Mitchel (@BillyPacman) (23 April 2025, X) https://x.com/BillyPacman/status/1914854442882752782
88
Billy Mitchel (@BillyPacman) (24 April 2025, X) https://x.com/BillyPacman/status/1915373445795528922
89
Adam Bankhurt & Ryan Dinsdale YouTuber The Completionist Reponds to Allegations of “Charity Fraud” Against Him and Open Hand (15 November 2023, Updated 16 December 2023, IGN) https://www.ign.com/articles/youtuber-the-completionist-responds-to-allegations-of-charity-fraud-against-him-and-open-hand
90
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld, AU), s 10AA
91
SomeOrdinaryGamers Billy Mitchell Won The Lawsuit… (2 April 2025, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Df4ApM39Po
92
Asmongold TV I honestly can’t believe this (2 April 2025, YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVAmIGLtp-c

Mitchell v Jobst – A Low Score

Table of Contents

I. DEFAMATION

A. USA Brand Defamation

B. Australian Brand Defamation

C. Common Elements

D. Background

E. Relevant Defences

F. Analysis

1. Contextual Truth and the character of Billy Mitchell

2. The Witnesses

3. Judge’s analysis

4. Other elements

G. Conclusion re: Defamation

H. Appeal?

II. KARL’S COMMUNICATIONS

A. Karl’s Stance

B. Karl’s Audience

C. Is any action available?

III. THE APOLLO LEGEND STORY

A. The Anti-Billy Crew on Apollo Legend

B. What was all this really all about?

IV. THE SILVER LINING

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Table of Contents

I. DEFAMATION

A. USA Brand Defamation

B. Australian Brand Defamation

C. Common Elements

D. Background

E. Relevant Defences

F. Analysis

1. Contextual Truth and the character of Billy Mitchell

2. The Witnesses

3. Judge’s analysis

4. Other elements

G. Conclusion re: Defamation

H. Appeal?

II. KARL’S COMMUNICATIONS

A. Karl’s Stance

B. Karl’s Audience

C. Is any action available?

III. THE APOLLO LEGEND STORY

A. The Anti-Billy Crew on Apollo Legend

B. What was all this really all about?

IV. THE SILVER LINING

Share this:

Related

Leave a Reply Cancel reply