Jobst v Mitchell : ROUND TWO!

So, having spent years mocking Billy Mitchell(Billy) and then suffering a humiliating defeat in court against him – followed by declaring bankruptcy and having to deal with an audience who feel betrayed Karl Jobst(Karl) decided to press Start to continue and launched a lawsuit against Billy in Florida.¹Jobst v. Mitchell, 0:26-cv-60997, (S.D. Fla.)

Of course, since Karl is bankrupt, he’s filing this pro se, meaning after losing a law suit in Australia²Mitchell v Jobst [2025] QDC 41 where he had the best representation that Notch’s money could buy – he is no proceeding without a lawyer in a foreign legal system.

This is not something I would recommend. But, so far Karl seems to have spent $405 US (~$567 Australian) on this so… I guess he’s not taking advice on it. For some reason it makes me think of Llamas with Hats. If you know, you know. If you don’t… you can go watch it I guess?

So, let’s have a look at Karl’s complaint, whether it’s got legs and what the scope of possible outcomes are. The complaint and the exhibit are a mess, so I’m going to try to structure them in a more familiar method and skip going over the entire background.

Table of Contents

I. CAUSES OF ACTION ↳A. Defamation – Illegal Activity ↳B. Defamation – GoFundMe ↳C. Defamation – More Fraud ↳D. Defamation – Notch ↳E. Defamation – Yet More Fraud ↳F. Likeness Rights ↳G. I.I.E.D. II. RELEVANT LAW ↳A. Jurisdiction ↳B. Defamation ↳C. Likeness Rights ↳D. I.I.E.D. ↳E. S.L.A.P.P. ↳F. Countersuit?

III. ARGUMENTS ↳A. Jurisdiction ↳B. “Illegal Activity” ↳C. GoFundMe Fraud ↳D. Additional Fraud ↳E. Defrauding Notch ↳F. Overall Fraud ↳G. Likeness Rights ↳H. I.I.E.D IV. RISKS ↳A. Billy ↳B. Karl V. CONCLUSION APPENDIX A – AUTHORITIES

I’ll also be using my own screenshots and citations because, well Karl is pretty terrible at those too – it seems he doesn’t ever use light mode or consider creating transcripts, etc.

Fully documents are available on Courtlistener.

If you need more context you can always check in with Karl’s strongest warrior, ersatz_cats, who is responding very normally to the news.³ersatz_cats Perfect Pacman <perfectpacman.com>

Just maybe… keep in mind his previous coverage and the biases he may have.

Importantly: I am not (at time of writing), a lawyer. I am most certainly not a lawyer certified to practice in Florida or the USA. Most importantly of all, I am not YOUR lawyer: the following is not personalised legal advice and is purely for educational and entertainment purposes. Nobody, especially not Billy or Karl, should rely upon this as legal advice. This is entirely for my own amusement/gratification.

Not that Karl has the best history for relying on advice anyway. ⬆️

I. CAUSES OF ACTION

Karl brings seven causes of action again Billy, there’s a lot of overlap. This is pretty normal as usually when you finally get around to going to court over something like this – you either have a singular issue that matters to your or the collection of sticks that broke the camel’s back.

Ordinarily for a matter relating to defamation, such as with say Mitchel v Jobst the causes of action are tied to specific statements and a specific form of harm that they did. With Karl’s, not so much. ⬆️

A. Defamation Per Se – Illegal Activity

The first is an assertion that Billy has defamed Karl by alleging “serious illegal activity” before and during the bankruptcy.⁴Jobst v. Mitchell, above n 1, Document #1, Main Document, [Complaint], at [79] The tweet to confirm this is readily available at time of writing:⁵Billy Mitchel (25 June 2025) @billypacman X née Twitter <x.com>

It then goes on to state that Billy had “published and endorsed statements conveying that Jobst had engaged in unlawful conduct to defraud creditors, including allegations that Jobst had improperly moved or concealed assets in connection with the bankruptcy.”⁶Complaint, above n 4, at [80]

This is trickier since his evidence provided of this is Billy shared⁷Billy Mitchell (18 May 2025) @BillyPacMan X née Twitter <x.com> a (now deleted) Reddit thread,⁸0mnip073n7 “Karl; Jobst boats about moving assets to his wife before declaring bankruptcy — a possible ‘creditor-defeating’ scheme” r/youtubedrama Reddit <www.reddit.com> with the statement of “The plot thickens” (along with the comments of the thread), and some screen captures of a stream by Billy where most of it is pitch blackness.⁹Jobst v. Mitchell, above n 1, Attachment #1, [Exhibits], at, 4-5, 17 – 18

And here’s a video showing original Reddit thread and contents, with third party commentary that (to the best of my knowledge has no connection to Billy):¹⁰“Karl Jobst Brags in Discord About Transferring Assets to Wife” (18 May 2025) @TheDomainGPCE YouTube <www.youtube.com>

Weirdly Karl also claims Mitchell corrected the record during a stream.¹¹Complaint, above n 4, at [22]

Karl states that it is defamation per se, seeks damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.¹²Complaint, above n 4, at [83]-[85] ⬆️

B. Defamation Per Se – GoFund Me Fraud

Next Karl moves onto the claim that Billy said that his GoFundMe campaign was “on false premises with knowledge and intent to deceive the public”, then he restates it as “engaged in fraudulent fundraising and obtained approximately $200,00 from his audience through deception.”¹³Complaint, above n 4, at [87]-[88]

For this Karl relies upon a different video by Billy where he addressed Karl directly and said he “created a GoFundMe campaign with the knowledge and intent to fund the existing lawsuit on false premises. Period. End of paragraph.” He then states the broader video contextualizes this.¹⁴Complaint, above n 4, at [25]

Karl then advises this was false because he had legal advise and made revisions accordingly, and that he believes the GoFundMe is accurate, then goes into more of the back and forth. It also seems to try to litigate whether Karl was going to be served for another lawsuit or not.¹⁵Complaint, above n 4, at [26] – [40]

He also relies upon another pitch black live stream, showing chat messages in which he asserts Billy made some claims.¹⁶Exhibits, above n 9, at 35.

He also refers to the 12 November Livestream, which is still available but gives on indications on where the alleged statements occur in a 4+ hour video.¹⁷Billy Mitchell “BILLY MITCHEL LIVE” (12 November 2025) @KingOfKong YouTube <www.youtube.com>

Karl states that it is defamation per se, seeks damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.¹⁸Complaint, above n 4, at [91]-[93] ⬆️

C. Defamation Per Se – More Fraud

Next Karl moves onto claiming Billy asserts he “wrongfully obtains or misappropriated funds” from the GoFundMe, retaining roughly $50,000.¹⁹Complaint, above n 4, at [95]-[96]

This also relies on a12 November stream Billy has on YouTube,²⁰“BILLY MITCHELL LIVE“, above n 17 which is incredibly hard to read. Exhibits, at In this stream he alleges Billy claims Karl withheld $55,000 intended for David Race.²¹Complaint, above n 4, at [41] – [44]

In the same livestream, Mitchel stated in reference to Jobst: “He had $50,000 in one GoFundMe, 55 I think, and $200,00 in another GoFundMe… So, publicly there was $250,000 donated… He acknowledge that Notch game him $300,000… So 550 Let’s just say 500… He deceptively took $500,00 from you.”

Karl then states Billy knew this not to be true, because of testimony by David Race in the trial that was provided before Billy.²²Complaint,above n 4, at [45]-[46]

Karl states that it is defamation per se, seeks damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.²³Complaint, above n 4, at [99]-[101] ⬆️

D. Defamation Per Se – Defrauding Notch

Karl then claims that Mitchell stated he defrauded Markus Persson, aka Notch,²⁴Complaint, above n 4, at [103]-[104] aka the guy who threw away all the good will he got for building Minecraft to go be a billionaire incel.

For this, Karl relies upon presumably the quote above, and his evidence that Notch did offer him legal aid via social media and then via his manager.²⁵Complaint, above n 4, at [47]-[50]
Exhibits, above n 9, at 40-42 Then a section where Billy quote tweeted Notch: “Mitchell conveyed the false impression that Jobst had caused financial loss to Persson and others and had wrongfully obtained or retained funds, despite the fact that Persson voluntarily and knowingly provided support”²⁶ Billy Mitchell (26 April 2025) @BillyPacMan X née Twitter <x.com>

He then restates he funds were sent voluntarily and Billy knows it.²⁷Complaint, above n 4, at [53] – [55]

Karl states that it is defamation per se, seeks damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.²⁸Complaint, above n 4, at [107]-[109] ⬆️

E. Defamation Per Se – Yet more fraud

Next, Karl generally states that Billy is accusing him of a half a million dollars of fraud, conveying a general message.²⁹Complaint, above n 4, at [111] – [112]

This essentially relies upon all the above, especially the quote and the the general trend of Billy to attribute the fund raising to falsehood.³⁰Complaint, above n 4, at [56]-[63]

Karl states that it is defamation per se, seeks damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.³¹Complaint, above n 4, at [115]-[117] ⬆️

F. Likeness rights

Well Karl calls it “Unauthorized use of Name and Likeness” but the Florida statue is “Unauthorized publication of name or likeness” – more on this in relevant law. Essentially Karl is stating the use of his face and name in various images and promotion codes by Billy was not done with consent and is thus, authorized.³²Complaint, above n 4, at [119]-[121]

Most of them are simply variations on coupon codes that either refer to the outcome of the lawsuit, or incorporate Karl’s name in some way. Most of them are screenshots of tweets and Discord messages, but there are 3 novel uses of his likeness is in promotions.³³Exhibits, above n 9, at 48-53

Regrettably it seems was not entirely a bit, Billy claims they were selling the photos and they sold out. People paid money for this.

Karl states that was extremely upsetting and harmful to his reputation, he claims damages for actual injury (to be decided by a jury) and the maximum punitive damages. No amount specified.³⁴Complaint, above n 4, at [122]-[124] ⬆️

G. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Finally, Karl claims that Billy engaged in “repeated publication of statements and imagery designed to humiliate, intimidate, and degrade Jobst before a public audience”³⁵Complaint, above n 4, at [126]

This included “imagery depicting Jobst as being hanged or otherwise subjected to violence, the publication of dehumanizing and degrading images and content portraying Jobst in humiliating circumstances, repeated statements mocking Jobst’s financial condition.” as well as implications of that and potentially more legal action, accusations, etc.³⁶Complaint, above n 4, at [127]

There isn’t actually a set of exhibits for this specific section, it just seems to rely upon everything that he’s cited previously and in the section about “ongoing pattern”. I’m not going to include any more inline pics mostly because well they’re kind of boring and you’ve probably got the picture by now.

Karl claims this is extremely outrageous, and was perpetuated with the intention or reckless disregard for the risk of causing severe emotional distress. He seeks punitive damages.³⁷Complaint, above n 4, at [130]-[132] ⬆️

II. RELEVANT LAW

Karl’s complaint is very light on law. It looks, kind of like it was drafted by looking at other complaints and just trying to piece it together – which at least means it isn’t cited hallucinated cases.

An important factor to understand is that since this is a US civil process, the default standard of proof required is the preponderance of evidence. In lay person terms, the fact-finder will decide what they think is most likely. This is a much lower standard than the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” required in criminal trials. ⬆️

A. Jurisdiction

Karl opted to pursue this in federal court, which means a justification must be made under the rules. This is not a federal question, rather Karl is relying upon § 1332³⁸28 U.S. Code § 1332.

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs

Where disputed, this does place a burden upon the plaintiff to explain and justify the damages sought. In the event it is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the court may order the plaintiff to pay “just costs” to the defendant.³⁹28 U.S. Code § 1919

Karl can’t sue Billy by the Australian standard both because of the doctrine of forum non convenes – that litigation should take place in a suitable venue – and because US law expressly does not recognize judgments defamation that are incompatible with US law.⁴⁰28 U.S. Code § 4102

‘Merica. ⬆️

B. Defamation

In the United States of America defamation laws can vary state by state, but he core pillars are always the same. It is, however, quite different to defamation law in Australia which is often short-handed (inaccurately, in my opinion) to “harder”.

In Florida, defamation is still treated as a tort (common law created by the courts) but has specific statutes relating to it in Chapter 770 of the state statutes. They are primarily focused on a) providing suitable protections to journalists and their publishers,⁴¹Fla Stat §770.01-04 (2025) and b) ensuring only 1 bite at the cherry rather than venue shopping or seeking multiple judgments on a single event.⁴²Fla Stat §770.05-08 (2025)

In a common law claim of defamation, the plaintiff must prove the defendant:

1. Communicated something that was factually untrue (statement)
2. The untrue fact was harmful to the reputation of the plaintiff(sting)
3. The communication was received by at least one other person(audience)
4. The sting was such that it did demonstrable harm to the plaintiff, or was otherwise of a category where harm can be assumed (per se).
5. If the plaintiff is a public figure, there is an additional requirement of “actual malice” which means the defendant must have known, or been recklessly indifferent, to the lack of truth and the harm it could inflict on the plaintiff.⁴³New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 383 U.S. 254 (1964)

What qualifies as per se is one of the things that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but for our purposes accusations of a serious crime can qualify as per se – however Florida has concluded on a state level that media bodies cannot qualify for defamation per se.

Defamation is sometimes referred to as a plaintiff’s tort, as there is a very low standard of evidence required to commence the proceeding. The plaintiff need only point to the statement and explain the sting.

Truth comes in at the defence stage, as the main defenses against defamation:

1. Truth. This is an absolute defense as it immediately negates the claim.
2. Honest opinion. This requires that the show that audience would have understood it to be an honestly held opinion – generally either prima facie (where the terminology is means its obviously an opinion) or by demonstrating the belief is an opinion through pointing to the basis of the opinion. The opinion can be weird, and ridiculous, it just has to be an honest opinion.
3. Interpretation. You said the words but they didn’t mean what the plaintiff says they mean – it was jargon, or an alternative interpretation of the words to the audience. (eg “When I said ‘he killed them’ it was clearly about amazing response to their post, not a claim he literally ended their lives.”)
   Importantly: There can only be 1 definition, you cannot argue that it has multiple meanings depending on audiences, could mean multiple things, etc.
4. Harmless. The person is already defamation proof, it was a joke, nobody who heard it understood it, etc. Negating the sting negates the claim.
5. Privilege. Various scenarios such as being on the witness stand, interviewed by your lawyer, speaking in parliament, etc all come with special privilege that means you can’t be accountable for defamation.
6. Neutral Reportage. This is what journalists tend to reply on, in which you are simply putting out facts for the public to make their own judgement on. It requires that the disclosure of the facts be open and complete, take all reasonable steps to verify your information, and generally expects you will give the parties a right of reply in advance of making the statement.

Each of these defences has its own risks and demands. Notably truth and harmless both run the risk of making you look unremorseful if you are found to have defamed someone. Another important thing to understand is that when considering defences such as opinion, and interpretation, the court looks at the entire “text”.

By that I mean that if the statement occurred in a video, the defendant is free to use any element of that video in their claim of defence. If it was in a book, etc. Theoretically the defamation can last between the sting, and the defence but it cannot claim to be ongoing if it is negated within the text itself.

Generally damages for a defamation claim must be demonstrated. If you’re claiming harm to business you need to show the lost sales, personal harm you need to show how you’re impacted, etc. It is possible to win with “nominal” damages, which is usually rounded to $1. ⬆️

C. Likeness rights

This is generally a murky area of law. There is no federal statue regarding it, so sometimes its considered unfair trade, etc. In Florida there is a specific statute, under Commercial Discrimination, §540.08 which states:⁴⁴ Fla Stat §540.08 (2023-25)

(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:
(a) Such person; or
(b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or

The relevant defenses included in the statute are:

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(a) The publication, printing, display, or use of the name or likeness of any person in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest and where such name or likeness is not used for advertising purposes;
(b) The use of such name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness in connection with the resale or other distribution of literary, musical, or artistic productions or other articles of merchandise or property where such person has consented to the use of her or his name, portrait, photograph, or likeness on or in connection with the initial sale or distribution thereof; or
(c) Any photograph of a person solely as a member of the public and where such person is not named or otherwise identified in or in connection with the use of such photograph.
(5) No action shall be brought under this section by reason of any publication, printing, display, or other public use of the name or likeness of a person occurring after the expiration of 40 years from and after the death of such person.

The 11th Circuit has held that direct promotion does not include the mere use of an individual’s name in a publication about events in which they were present or involved.⁴⁵Valentine v. CBS, Inc., 698 F. 2d 430 (11th Cir. 1983)

It is not usually combined with emotional harm or malice and there are no 11th Circuit cases I could find relating to it, however there was a case which would be persuasive. In Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc⁴⁶Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc 740 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96887 a woman successfully argued that the unauthorized used had harmed her reputation and caused emotional harm with her face was used without her permission on the cover of a pornographic product.

Otherwise generally it relates to simple unjust enrichment, by using the person’s image or name to make a profit – similar to copyright infringement. ⬆️

D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

To succeed in a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress(IIED) in Florida (a state that does recognize the tort), a plaintiff must show the defendant:

1. Acted in a manner which was intentional, or reckless to the harm they may cause
2. The defendant’s intentional or reckless behaviour was outrageous
3. The defendant’s behaviour was such that it would cause severe emotional distress
4. The plaintiff was harmed by way of severe emotional distress suffered

It is an extremely high bar to reach, particularly since the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it can’t be applied for by public figures when parody is involved.⁴⁷Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

This would also apply to defamation claims as well, where parody applies – though it is noteworthy that while he was not a politician, the ruling speaks heavily to Jerry Falwell as a political figure.

Even where there is not parody or a political or public figure, the standard for shocking and outrageous is extremely high, particularly when conducted in public and directed to the public on a public issue.⁴⁸Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) ⬆️

E. SLAPP?

Florida does have a state anti-SLAPP law.

If you file a SLAPP suit you can end up paying the other side’s costs. It essentially requires the party being used to seek an expeditious summary judgement.⁴⁹Fla Stat §768.295 (2025)

Essentially if you file a nonsense, meritless complaint and the other side files to get rid of it ASAP rather than beating around the bush – you may be rewarded with costs.

I could not find a case of the Florida anti-slap law being applied to a federal case, or at least a vaguely comparable one so I’m going to assume it’s possible but uncertain. ⬆️

F. Countersuit?

Whenever you take case to court, there is generally a risk that a party might counter-sue, however in this case anything that Billy wanted to sue Karl over would have to be something that he did wrong in Florida.

Under international conventions, generally anything someone does is deemed to happen in the jurisdiction that they are at the time – that’s why Billy had to sue Karl in Australia the first time.

That’s not to say it’s not impossible – but in this scenario it’s highly unlikely that Billy would ask for a counter-suit since it could require it being held under Australian law, which would require Billy to pay for expert witnesses to advise the judge what Australian law says on the matter. (Particularly since Karl is apparently not making a great success of paying off his existing bills)

The court still could sanction Karl though. ⬆️

III. ARGUMENTS

How good are the arguments? Do the facts support Karl’s claim?

Does Billy have any strong defences available to him?

Is this more ridiculous than the previous lawsuit? ⬆️

A. Jurisdiction

Karl hasn’t specified any dollar amounts in his complaints – which is going to be an issue since he needs the $75,000 or more to reach the minimum threshold for the jurisdictional requirements.

While it’s true that on the global level, the US does have particularly enticing punitive damage options – these are entirely at the discretion of the court and usually require some sort of other foundational damages.

In Billy’s lawsuit against Karl he was able to claim damages in the hundreds of thousands because Karl had waged a relentless campaign against him that framed him as remorselessly responsible for the death of a young person. Karl is complaining about mean tweets, a retracted statement and a Reddit thread that was mostly just a post from his own Discord.

While it’s possible, I suspect the first uphill battle Karl is going to face is convincing the court there’s really $75,000 US at stake here. ⬆️

B. “Illegal Activity”

This is probably, in my opinion, the strongest claim that Karl has since Billy just outright says it’s “serious illegal activity” in the post. It’s also by far the most interesting for that reason.

What did Billy mean by this? No, really. What did he mean, specifically? That’s what will decide the outcome of the question of whether it’s defamatory or not.

This is where Karl is floundering due to lack of legal experience, despite having been through an extensive defamation law suit on defamation.

In order to succeed here Karl is going to have to persuade the court that Billy’s audience definitely understood this to be a statement of fact by Billy that he knew for a fact that Karl was engaged in what the court considers to be serious illegal activity. This isn’t a clear standard, and it gets murkier when you consider Australia operates on an entirely different legal code.

He also needs to hope that Billy doesn’t convince the court that Billy was, in fact, right to say it. Historically, Billy is seen as a more credible witness than Karl.⁵⁰Mitchell v Karl, above n 2

Straight off the bat, there’s the problem that Billy didn’t really accuse Karl of a particular crime – by Karl’s own telling he shared a Reddit post which state Karl was hiding assets and provided a screenshot from the Discord has his evidence, that’s an honest opinion with the supporting evidence.

Framing everything as an extension of that is basically framing everything as Billy’s honest opinion – and, for better or for worse, Billy is allowed to have opinions. Also, since Billy is not a legal practitioner or a cop – the term “serious” can be argued to be an opinion and not an objective statement.

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

This is also kind of funny since in Mitchell v Jobst, Karl (unsuccessfully) relied upon the “contextual truth” defence. The most famous instance of this was when a former soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, sued a reporter for defamation and the court, essentially confirmed that even though there had been no prosecution etc he had basically committed war crimes.⁵¹Elizabeth Byrne & Jamie McKinnell “Ben Roberts-Smith loses final legal bid to overturn defamation ruling” (4 September 2025) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>

It wasn’t a good time for him and the general public have not been sympathetic, in fact, it’s gotten much worse for him. He was arrested for war crimes on 7 April 2026.⁵²Tom Lowrey “War hero to accused war criminal: Inside Ben Roberts-Smith’s prosecution” (11 April 2026) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>

Again, civil actions have a much lower standard of proof than criminal – so they can find Karl did a crime even he hasn’t been prosecuted but they think it’s more likely that he did than he didn’t.

Also it seems unlikely that Karl knows or has access to everything Bill does, and given the amount of leaked screenshots from Karl’s discord and his general contempt for lawyers – I would not be super confident that Billy can’t find something that will convince a court in Florida that Karl was doing something “seriously illegal”.

This kind of keeping his hands and nose clean has not been a strong suit of Karl’s. Even his strongest warrior agrees Karl is prone to being messy.⁵³ersatz_cats “Karl Jobst versus Billy Mitchell: The fallout roundup (part 1)” (29 September 2025) <perfectpacman.com> ⬆️

C. GoFundMe Fraud

This one is going to be a real struggle for Karl because he’s trying to create a very precise definition of what Billy meant when he said “false premises” and the Internet is full a wide variety of arguments about why they thought Karl’s fundraiser was dodgy.

Without further elaboration from Billy, it’s going to be hard to confirm which theory he was promoting. It really is a situation where it seems like the whole text could become very relevant here. Billy will be free to refer to absolutely anything else he said in that stream to contextualize his statement.

Billy can also point to the backlash Karl received without his prompting, like how even Mutahar, Karl’s research buddy against The Completionist, was shocked.⁵⁴Mutahar “Billy Mitchell Won The Lawsuit…” (2 April 2025) SomeOrdinaryGamers YouTube <www.youtube.com>

Also given that backlash, and that the harm to Karl would be the opinion of either his own audience, or Billy’s audience, the fact that all that happened before Billy spoke could be an argument that Karl had become defamation proof on that specific topic. Or at least, was not going to suffer any harm from that statement.

This also just opens up the door for Billy to potentially call everyone who used to support Karl, and donated, but now hates his guts to volunteer as witnesses. I feel confident he can probably find a few of those in Florida.

It’s not going to be the opportunity to re-litigate the GoFundMe and clear his name that Karl wants it to be.

Overall, I think Karl should have just taken the L. ⬆️

D. Additional Fraud

Now the one that is going to be hardest to progress in the USA. Karl claims Billy is substantially accusing him of keeping $50,000 for his own benefit but he can’t show us any proof that Billy said that.

The quote he provides simply says, “took from you”.

I mean you did take the money Karl, that’s how it works – you took the money and you gave it to professional witness as payment for services. That’s how it works.

Again, Karl seems to struggle with the detail that defamation law is not about what feels righteous to the plaintiff, but about what the statement means to the audience, does it carry the sting?

Karl’s approach is particularly unworkable in the US because of the requirement that the sting come from a statement of fact – you can’t argue “substantial truth” like you can in Australia and New Zealand. (You can argue defamation by implication, but it still has to be factually wrong, as in Coton where the implication was she was a performer in the pornography product that used her likeness.)⁵⁵Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc, above n 46

Given the challenges inherent in convincing the court that his interpretation of the statement is the correct one, I don’t see this one making much progress. ⬆️

E. Defrauding Notch

Again, Karl seems to misunderstand the assignment and lay the foundation for Billy’s defense – while also trying to re-write what Billy said.

In the tweet, Billy quotes Notch and thus provides the evidence for his opinion and the original information that Karl claims he is misrepresenting.

Presumably Karl plans to argue that Notch was okay with the outcome, and that he would have given Karl the money anyway etc but this, again, misunderstands some elements of defamation law.

Firstly, if Billy’s argument is that it’s his opinion based on what he showed people Notch was saying – then it doesn’t matter what the truth is. Whether Notch says he would or wouldn’t have gone ahead if things were different isn’t really a fact, and wouldn’t necessarily change whether he was being taken advantage of.

Secondly, Notch is a weird guy. He famously got himself cancelled by going on reactionary rants to the extent people didn’t know how to feel about him donating to Games Done Quick,⁵⁶“The Crew Reacts to Notch Donating 10k” (27 October 2014) noneeyewithleftyork YouTube <www.youtube.com> and he was eventually removed from Minecraft credits.⁵⁷Gwendolyn Smith “The Minecraft creator went on a transphobic rant & Twitter wasn’t having it” (12 March 2019) LGBTQ Nation <www.lgbtqnation.com>

He married a moderator from his forums and then divorced her a year later,⁵⁸Ryan Mac “Inside The Post-Minecraft Life Of Billionaire Gamer God Markus Persson” (3 March 2015)Forbes <www.forbes.com> he supported Q-Anon back when that was a thing.⁵⁹Jacob Kastrenakes “Microsoft excludes Minecraft’s creator from anniversary event over his ‘comments and opinions’” (30 April 2019) The Verge <www.theverge.com> It doesn’t seem like it would be too hard to convince a court that Notch is easily taken advantage of and Karl spun the narrative to convince him to hand over money (and that Notch just hadn’t worked out yet, or was refusing to admit to it out of pride).

Thirdly, it’s not wrong that Notch spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the lawsuit and did not get the outcome he wanted, and that being a billionaire he probably doesn’t miss the money that much.

Remember, Notch doesn’t need to be objectively defrauded, it just has to be a situation where it could be considered a clear opinion or it could be considered true under the most compelling interpretation.

Lastly, any use of Notch’s insights would almost certainly require Notch to appear as a witness – and be subject to cross-examination. I’m not convinced that he’d hold up well given his many social blunders and the generally muddy nature of this proceeding.

Overall, outlook not good. ⬆️

F. Overall Fraud

This is essentially a catch all for all the above. It’s not a terrible idea, but there is also a strong likelihood that if Karl were to succeed on any defamation claim the court would find whatever compensation they assigned there was already covered under this one.

So, like… fine. It’s fine.

But I keep coming back to none of the defamation claims seem ready to deal with the general defence that Billy can make that all of this is being done in public, rather than via direct messages to Karl, because it is political speech.

The thought of Billy Mitchell presenting himself as a campaigner against fraud, against pick-up artists, against people who abuse a platform to harass business owners is deeply cringe… but Karl has failed to make it a non-viable defence, somehow. ⬆️

G. Likeness Rights

This one I find to be the most interesting legally since generally the idea is that the compensation for the unlicensed use of a celebrity or other influential figure. Given Karl’s fall from grace, he’s unlikely to be able to claim much – and anything he did claim would have to rely on his various sponsorships. Then there’d be an argument about how much was Karl, and how much was the particular content of the sponsored video.

But there is the Coton case where damages were linked to the harm.⁶⁰Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc, above n 46

So the potential is there, but we need to examine the path to it – and here’s where a major problem arises. Coton was a photographer and model who was associated with pornography against her will and through no fault of her own, at the tender age of 18.⁶¹“Teenager sues over porn picture” (13 August 2007) BBC News <news.bbc.co.uk> She also, justifiably, argued that the use of her image on the product defamed her by creating the implication that she was a performer in the product.

Karl is, arguably, the architect of his own misfortune and the events linked to the promotion. He is certain a purveyor of drama who swims freely in the culture of profiting off the mockery of others, who escalated the underlying cause for his own profit and gratification until it blew up in his face.

Essentially this will be a novel claim with multiple branches of complexity:

1. Can Billy apply the same rationale of the marketing being about events, rather than relying upon some inherent quality of Karl?
2. To what degree is the imagery a personal artwork created by Billy as a type of personal expression, then repurposed for a commercial venture?
3. To what degree does Karl’s own use of Billy’s likeness to promote his channel, public taunting of Billy and willing participation in the Australian lawsuit diminish Billy’s liability to Karl?
4. To what degree does Billy’s right of personal expression under the 1st Amendment, and need to recoup his losses due to Karl’s actions, apply? Are the likenesses sufficiently transformative?
5. Is Karl making Billy into the next Afroman (from a tort law perspective only)?

This area is extremely complex, and could probably provoke some interesting discussions among subject matter experts but runs into a couple of problems that are likely to prevent that.

For this element of her suit, Coton was awarded $25,000. There is no way you can get good legal coverage of it for less than that, or that, or double that. It is extremely unlikely that Karl can show he suffered more personal harm – entirely due to this promo – and so no way this is economical to pursue over a single 4 day promo.

The only upside for Karl is that if he is able to convince the court that there’s a there there, it will be pretty self-evident that Billy has been malicious and so the punitive damages might be possible. But he has to catch the rabbit before he can skin it.

Likely to be much ado about nothing. ⬆️

H. IIED.

Honey, no.

Karl, I know you think this is all considered bad and very upsetting but that’s because you live in the civilized land of Australia. In Capitalist America, this doesn’t even rate as novel let alone outrageous.

Parody has been protected from IIED claims by the Supreme Court, they let the Westboro Baptist Church picket funerals of war veterans⁶²Snyder v. Phelps, above n 48 and weirdos like Nick Fuentes to claim he doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened, but he wished it did, etc.⁶³Big Joel “Nick Fuentes Destroyed My Life” @BigJoel YouTube <www.youtube.com> Libs of TikTok.

These are pretty much always about public issues, even if they happen to focus on private individuals like the case against the Westboro Baptist Church – but honestly i don’t think it’d be too hard for Billy’s team to argue that what he’s opposing isn’t just Karl, it’s dishonesty and the culture of fabricating claims against public figures, etc.

But even if that weren’t the case, a claim like IIED requires evidence of the harm caused by the emotional distress. It can be psychological, it can be physical, but it has to be demonstrated.

It’s going to be very, very hard for Karl to claim he’s suffered unspecified severe harm when channel of him calling out speedrun cheats, talking smack about them, and his doubly down on his campaign against The Completionist. Then to sort the harm he’s suffering as a natural consequence of his downfall.

Not happening.

Unfortunately.

I mean the US really needs to get their shit together with allowing people to basically run harassment campaigns under the shield of “parody” and “Free Speech”. But this is not going to be the case to change how they look at things. ⬆️

IV. RISKS

So, aside the from obvious risk of re-discovering a public humiliation kink, what are the risks to both parties? ⬆️

A. Billy

Billy’s probably going to have to hire a lawyer to deal with this, and deal with the risk of ongoing legal expenses as a result of that.

In the event that he is found to have done something wrong, he may be ordered to pay Karl something – but I have my doubts it will be any noteworthy amount since Karl is self-representing and the arguments are bad.

Also Tony/LUS, a lawyer in the US, felt the presentation and lack of citation was so bad they didn’t even talk about anything else.⁶⁴Tony Guo “Karl Jobst 500 IQ Plan to Bankrupt Billy Mitchell is Already Working?” (13 April 2026) @LUS YouTube <www.youtube.com>

On the off chance Billy does decide to defend himself then he risks some damages – but there’s also a reasonable chance that the damages could be less than what he’d pay for lawyers.

He also has options like making a strategic settlement offer as a means to claim costs later, which is its own thing that I’m not really going to go into beyond to say that Billy has a lot of options and choices in how much risk he takes.

It’s very gray for Billy. But he seems very confident. ⬆️

B. Karl

Hilariously enough, Karl is the one who is putting himself at risk here. He really shot himself in the foot going in half-cocked, and it’s only going to get worse.

In the event that Billy successfully convinces the district court that Karl’s damages can’t possibly amount to $75,000 then he would be able to have it shifted to state court – who have different protocols are are less likely to be equipped to engage with an overseas litigant.

It is possible that Billy may move for expeditious summary judgement to engage Florida’s anti-SLAPP, thus sending Karl the bill for his lawyers.

This would be particularly bad for Karl if it happens while he is still bankrupt, since it would mean he would need to explain to his trustee how it is that he managed to get into even more debt while bankrupt.

He could run into the same problem if he acts up and the court sanctions him.

It’s quite possible Billy’s counsel will advise that it’s not safe to seek summary judgement, since that would require accepting Karl’s version of events. In that case he can still move to have it dismissed, moved to state court, etc.

Even if the suit isn’t dismissed or moved to state court, Karl will have to cooperate with discovery and that they are not as civilized about that in the USA.

Anything that comes up in discovery and filed on the PACER docket automatically becomes public record unless you pro-actively get it sealed.

That’s an awful big risk for a guy who is at the mercy of the public opinion, and on everyone’s radar for potential drama content.

But even if there’s nothing incriminating, and Billy doesn’t get it dismissed, Karl will still need to thread the needle of paying for all the necessary costs while being bankrupt (and thus having his expendable income limited).

This also somewhat handicaps him, since while Billy can probably afford expert witnesses – Karl won’t be able to. That could very easily make or break the difference with the more ambiguous points. ⬆️

V. CONCLUSION

While not completely without merit, the juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze and Karl has not done himself any favours with his complaint.

Ultimately he seems to be validating Judge Ken Barlow:⁶⁵Mitchell v Jobst, above n 2, at [74]

Mr Jobst could not be described as a shrinking violet, nor as having any concept of tact or diplomacy. Both in his YouTube videos that were played to the court and in giving his evidence, he was self-confident, forthright in expressing his views and he struck me as very hard to dissuade from a view (whether an opinion or as to the existence of a fact) once he had formed it.

Ultimately what I expect to see is:

1. Billy will retain a lawyer and they will move to dismiss on basis of no claim
2. Karl will be given the option to amend his complaint
3. Billy’s lawyer will move to dismiss the complaint again
4. It will fizzle out at that stage

Even if Karl manages to keep pushing the boulder up the hill, I don’t expect he’ll get any substantial amount of money out of it and the strain of doing all this himself while trying to manage his business, provide for his family etc is likely to exact a much greater toll than he can ever get in money.

Once again, I think its worth pointing out that Karl and his strongest warrior both seem to really be obsessed with the idea that Billy is evil not so much because of anything about Billy, but because they need him to be the villain.

Otherwise Karl, and his strongest warrior, might have to think about who else might contributed to Apollo Legend’s negative feelings.

They have not absorbed the wisdom of the popular morality play K-Pop Demon Hunters. They are not interested in confronting themselves, reflecting on their mistakes, accepting their flaws and growing as people – nor are they interested in anyone else doing such. They’re only interested in takedowns.

I think everyone would be much happier if all three of these guys would just go to therapy – especially me. I don’t like seeing Billy Mitchell be right.

Look at his rancid takes.

He partners with serial harasser and AI brain cooked loser Smash JT.⁶⁶Jordan Black “Digging Into Smash JT’s EMBARRASSING AI-Assisted Legal Trainwreck” (1 April 2026) @deaddomain YouTube <www.youtube.com>

Kaaaaaarl, stop serving this guy Ws. You’re basically just encouraging the more reactionary members of your remaining audience to become even worse. ⬆️

APPENDIX A – AUTHORITIES

As mentioned, this post is not legal advice, nor should you consider it to be professionally researched. In the interests of transparency, and helping people who may be interested in this stuff.

If this were a real opinion I would expect the list to be much, much longer. It would cite persuasive cases from other states, maybe even other nations and cases that focus on the specific definitions of words etc.

Neither party is paying me to do that, this was entirely for my own satisfaction.

Also pro-tip: Do not, under any circumstances, trust AI to do your case research and find your citations for you.⁶⁷Zane Sparling “AI hallucinations cost lawyers $110,000 in Oregon vineyard lawsuit” (15 April 2026) Oregon Live The Oregonian <www.oregonlive.com>

United States of America Legal Code

• US. Code: Title 28 – Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
  • Part IV – Jurisdiction and Venue
    • 28 U.S. Code §1332
  • Part V – Fees and Costs
    • 28 U.S. Code §1919
  • Part VI – Foreign Judgments
    • 28 U.S. Code §4102

Supreme Court case law relied upon

• New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 383 U.S. 254 (1964)
• Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
• Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)

11th Circuit case law relied upon

• Valentine v. CBS, Inc., 698 F. 2d 430 (11th Cir. 1983)

Florida District Courts case law relied upon

• Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc 740 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96887

2025 Florida Statutes

• TITLE XXXIII – REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS
  • CHAPTER 540 COMMERCIAL DISCRIMINATION
• TITLE XLV – TORTS
  • CHAPTER 678 NEGLIGENCE
    • §678.25 – Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited.
  • CHAPTER 770 DEFAMATION

⬆️

• 1
  Jobst v. Mitchell, 0:26-cv-60997, (S.D. Fla.)
• 2
  Mitchell v Jobst [2025] QDC 41
• 3
  ersatz_cats Perfect Pacman <perfectpacman.com>
• 4
  Jobst v. Mitchell, above n 1, Document #1, Main Document, [Complaint], at [79]
• 5
  Billy Mitchel (25 June 2025) @billypacman X née Twitter <x.com>
• 6
  Complaint, above n 4, at [80]
• 7
  Billy Mitchell (18 May 2025) @BillyPacMan X née Twitter <x.com>
• 8
  0mnip073n7 “Karl; Jobst boats about moving assets to his wife before declaring bankruptcy — a possible ‘creditor-defeating’ scheme” r/youtubedrama Reddit <www.reddit.com>
• 9
  Jobst v. Mitchell, above n 1, Attachment #1, [Exhibits], at, 4-5, 17 – 18
• 10
  “Karl Jobst Brags in Discord About Transferring Assets to Wife” (18 May 2025) @TheDomainGPCE YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 11
  Complaint, above n 4, at [22]
• 12
  Complaint, above n 4, at [83]-[85]
• 13
  Complaint, above n 4, at [87]-[88]
• 14
  Complaint, above n 4, at [25]
• 15
  Complaint, above n 4, at [26] – [40]
• 16
  Exhibits, above n 9, at 35.
• 17
  Billy Mitchell “BILLY MITCHEL LIVE” (12 November 2025) @KingOfKong YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 18
  Complaint, above n 4, at [91]-[93]
• 19
  Complaint, above n 4, at [95]-[96]
• 20
  “BILLY MITCHELL LIVE“, above n 17
• 21
  Complaint, above n 4, at [41] – [44]
• 22
  Complaint,above n 4, at [45]-[46]
• 23
  Complaint, above n 4, at [99]-[101]
• 24
  Complaint, above n 4, at [103]-[104]
• 25
  Complaint, above n 4, at [47]-[50]
  Exhibits, above n 9, at 40-42
• 26
  Billy Mitchell (26 April 2025) @BillyPacMan X née Twitter <x.com>
• 27
  Complaint, above n 4, at [53] – [55]
• 28
  Complaint, above n 4, at [107]-[109]
• 29
  Complaint, above n 4, at [111] – [112]
• 30
  Complaint, above n 4, at [56]-[63]
• 31
  Complaint, above n 4, at [115]-[117]
• 32
  Complaint, above n 4, at [119]-[121]
• 33
  Exhibits, above n 9, at 48-53
• 34
  Complaint, above n 4, at [122]-[124]
• 35
  Complaint, above n 4, at [126]
• 36
  Complaint, above n 4, at [127]
• 37
  Complaint, above n 4, at [130]-[132]
• 38
  28 U.S. Code § 1332
• 39
  28 U.S. Code § 1919
• 40
  28 U.S. Code § 4102
• 41
  Fla Stat §770.01-04 (2025)
• 42
  Fla Stat §770.05-08 (2025)
• 43
  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 383 U.S. 254 (1964)
• 44
  Fla Stat §540.08 (2023-25)
• 45
  Valentine v. CBS, Inc., 698 F. 2d 430 (11th Cir. 1983)
• 46
  Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc 740 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96887
• 47
  Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
• 48
  Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
• 49
  Fla Stat §768.295 (2025)
• 50
  Mitchell v Karl, above n 2
• 51
  Elizabeth Byrne & Jamie McKinnell “Ben Roberts-Smith loses final legal bid to overturn defamation ruling” (4 September 2025) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>
• 52
  Tom Lowrey “War hero to accused war criminal: Inside Ben Roberts-Smith’s prosecution” (11 April 2026) ABC News <www.abc.net.au>
• 53
  ersatz_cats “Karl Jobst versus Billy Mitchell: The fallout roundup (part 1)” (29 September 2025) <perfectpacman.com>
• 54
  Mutahar “Billy Mitchell Won The Lawsuit…” (2 April 2025) SomeOrdinaryGamers YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 55
  Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc, above n 46
• 56
  “The Crew Reacts to Notch Donating 10k” (27 October 2014) noneeyewithleftyork YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 57
  Gwendolyn Smith “The Minecraft creator went on a transphobic rant & Twitter wasn’t having it” (12 March 2019) LGBTQ Nation <www.lgbtqnation.com>
• 58
  Ryan Mac “Inside The Post-Minecraft Life Of Billionaire Gamer God Markus Persson” (3 March 2015)Forbes <www.forbes.com>
• 59
  Jacob Kastrenakes “Microsoft excludes Minecraft’s creator from anniversary event over his ‘comments and opinions’” (30 April 2019) The Verge <www.theverge.com>
• 60
  Coton v. Televised Visual X-Othgraphy, Inc, above n 46
• 61
  “Teenager sues over porn picture” (13 August 2007) BBC News <news.bbc.co.uk>
• 62
  Snyder v. Phelps, above n 48
• 63
  Big Joel “Nick Fuentes Destroyed My Life” @BigJoel YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 64
  Tony Guo “Karl Jobst 500 IQ Plan to Bankrupt Billy Mitchell is Already Working?” (13 April 2026) @LUS YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 65
  Mitchell v Jobst, above n 2, at [74]
• 66
  Jordan Black “Digging Into Smash JT’s EMBARRASSING AI-Assisted Legal Trainwreck” (1 April 2026) @deaddomain YouTube <www.youtube.com>
• 67
  Zane Sparling “AI hallucinations cost lawyers $110,000 in Oregon vineyard lawsuit” (15 April 2026) Oregon Live The Oregonian <www.oregonlive.com>