so i'm prepared to accept this may be a stupid question with no answer but....
in cases like this is there any idea at all when/if the lawsuit will be filed. like, if nothing happens in X weeks (where X is a number you can state) does that mean the matter is dropped for good?
I'm fully prepared to offer a stupid answer. I should point out that I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen several episodes of Law & Order. Presumably Mitchell would claim defamation by libel if this were ever to be filed. All states have statutes of limitations on those actions, so they had better hop to it if they want to be heard.
On a more speculative note, the evidence packet as presented was clearly not prepared by a lawyer, and does not appear to be ready for prime time. My suspicion is they paid a lawyer $200 to prepare a demand letter, but have not even confronted the amount of time and effort needed to make a legitimate filing, much less a supported argument.
good point about statue of limitations. i was more concerned about just repeated demands with different evidence each time, but i think you hit on the most relevant point. ok, i looked it up, and if a 3 second internet search is to be trusted, the california statute of limitation for defamation is one year to file. the valid extension reasons such as the filer not knowing about the alleged defamation yet certainly dont apply. It looks like the clock might have run out before this even started.
on the brightside, jace has made known disputes can be reopened without threat of lawsuit, so for people just wanting the truth these statutes are no roadblock to continued investigation.
even still thank you for the clarification. that is likely what they meant.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that is correct, that A) the suit has to be filed in California (note how the witness statements each list both the signer's home location and California), and B) the statute of limitations for defamation in Cali is one year. However, I've heard there are obscure legal tricks to extend the window on things like that - for instance, he could possibly have filed a preliminary filing before the statute expired, giving him more time to prepare his case - so I wouldn't necessarily count out legal action by Billy based solely on the one year window. (Again, not a lawyer, and I'd love to hear from a real lawyer on this. This is just stuff I've heard of before.)
Funny you bring up "what you've heard of before". I'm not a lawyer either, but from what I've gathered from pre-litigation, case law is used quite often. It's been a long time since I took law studies so my knowledge is going to be rough. It's basically referring to outcomes of past cases to define any legal precedents for the current case. Not everything is so clear-cut, and there's a bunch of grey areas, so no two cases are going to be alike. That's why multiple cases are used. I wish I could bring up examples, but I'm scared I might end up doing something wrong.
I'm glad that whole thing has finally been dealt with. I was worried it would turn into a LOOOOOONG thread like the Dragster one.
RTM REPLY - Walter sold me out on multiple occasions already so his actions here do not surprise me at all...
-> Cheating me out of 10% stock ownership in TG - Aug/05 conference call with Brien King
-> Disavowing previous statements RE Roy during a radio interview with Roy - AllGames Feb/07
-> Coercing me to accept Steve's taped 1.049M based on "the totality of the performance" - Nov/06
-> Claiming revenue-generating ideas that I gave to him as his own - Sep/05 in B/ Mae's Lodge in front of then-fellow referee Todd Rogers
-> Attempted "hush money" payout to silence me for 10 years - Dec/13 E-MAIL from Joel West
-> Offering no support during the Atari 2600 "split", a project that I fought him against for over a year as a waste of TG resources before he directed me to implement it
This is just what I remember. So it comes as no surprise to me that Walter would sign such hogwash in the here-and-now to support the Claimant. One can only wonder whether he will go so far as to commit willful perjury on the stand in support of that egomaniac...but I think we all suspect the answer to that already.