I took a look at some of the recent publicly available submissions and motions (available for a fee from the court website), and I consulted the "Minute Order" from the October 15 hearing. I believe the following is an accurate summary but obviously TG would have the last word.
Originally Posted by lexmark
The short answer is that the anti-SLAPP hearing was held on October 15, and it has been "continued" (basically, the hearing will reconvene) on December 4. Earlier, Mitchell's counsel had submitted a motion to take a deposition from Walter Day, with a hearing scheduled for November 12, so this would be the next scheduled court date pending some sort of change.
Since TG's original evidence submission update to this forum thread and provision of docs via Google drive (I think this was back in early summer), there has been a flurry of declarations, submissions, motions (Sur-Replies and Replies) related to the anti-SLAPP.
Basically, Mitchell's counsel submitted its Opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, and there's a rule where the court must assume his evidence to be true. However, TG's counsel has argued that Mitchell fabricated evidence to distance himself from Carlos Pineiro, David Race, (and others) and as a result he shouldn't be covered by this rule as part of the anti-SLAPP. A lot of the back and forth over the last several weeks has revolved around this situation.
What is the difference between and purpose of the two different hearings on 12 Nov and 4 Dec? How are these connected and related and will or can the one hearing effect another.. vica versa going forward?
My understanding is that the "main case" hearing will continue with the deposition from Walter Day on the 12th November, and the hearing on the anti-SLAPP part of the case will continue on December 4th.
Still not explain the difference of the two cases. What is meant by deposition of W Day? Explain in layman terms what is this case on 12th all about?
Originally Posted by TopherBrink
Is it a testimony for Billy case!? Is this totally another case? If so what is Walter Day case about?
Presumably it is Billy's team wanting Walter to give sworn testimony to the court for the main case, yes.
The anti-SLAPP motion is basically separate to this and is about challenging people like Billy abusing the threat of legal action and court cases to bully people.
I hope that makes more sense.
Any update on BM's stance with the videos? Does he still say Dwayne edited them, or has he acknowledged the interview with RTM?
Yes, Mitchell still claims that Richard edited the tapes ("There is a probable likelihood that these now alleged tapes are false representations of my performance, which were edited by Richard.")
Originally Posted by Streetwize
Mitchell doesn't address RTM's interview with MTV, but he does accuse RTM of expressing "direct hatred" and "personal animosity" for him. Part of that argument links RTM to a planned "meritless" class action lawsuit against Mitchell.
Interestingly, Mitchell includes a September 2019 post from RTM in support of this contention (known as Exhibit 36) where RTM expresses interest in joining a class-action against Mitchell in response to comments in the original Billy Mitchell Evidence Package that RTM viewed as libelous - namely, Mitchell's original assertion that RTM falsified a story that Mitchell shipped him the 1.047 tape, that RTM had "extreme hatred" for Steve Wiebe and therefore decided to submit the 1.047 million score to the database against Mitchell's express wishes since Mitchell "never, under any circumstances submitted a video taped world record."
Of course, Twin Galaxies has subsequently submitted the Billy Mitchell Evidence Package to the court as evidence (Mitchell himself did not include it in any previous submissions). Nonetheless, it's interesting that Mitchell himself has introduced it indirectly via Exhibit 36, ensuring that his previous claims about not submitting the 1.047 score - a position he subsequently abandoned without explanation in his court submissions (he now confirms in Exhibit 20 that he submitted the 1.047 tape) - will need to be considered by the court. I presume that this "it's not an official submission because I don't submit tapes" / "it's a formal submission" dance will be germane to assessing the reliability of Mitchell's testimony as the primary witness to his own case, including his claim that TG behaved with malice and with reckless disregard for the truth.
I couldn't help but laugh at the phrase "probable likelihood". Sometimes possibilities need to be raised since you can't entirely prove them, but that's the problem: they lack full merit without full evidence (in this case, the "real" tapes he constantly talks about). It falls to the judge to determine if it's worth considering, which means it can be dismissed. Even without the breakthrough evidence there is enough proof, albeit circumstantial, to show that Dwayne couldn't possibly edit every single tape.
Originally Posted by The Evener
I would like to point out in case people are not aware that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases. The rule civil cases use is something different: preponderance of the evidence. This means that instead of ~90% certainty for prosecution, the plaintiff only needs around 40-60% certainty to win the case. This is why it's so important to be thorough and dispute as much as possible on defense.
The only thing even more funny is the irony that BM's "secret evidence" will be used against him, or at least I recall said package was never meant to be made public. It's fair that a figure like him would choose to not have a huge presence on the Internet so they won't get harassed, not that I condone such, but I'm certain if people actually harassed him on here moderation would step in. We all wear masks. Not all of us have skeletons in our closets, but we all deserve not to be pried open unless we choose to. I really do get it. The main issue was that he was trying to contribute evidence behind the scenes; behind our backs. That's a little too private to not suspect something. The only thing possibly leaked that was worth discussing (which was mostly ignored at the time) was inside JDW's "legal threat" where he mentioned that Dwayne edited the tapes.
If I may add some speculation of my own, however, the submission of this package may also help undermine the assertion regarding Guinness restoring his records, given it was presumably this same evidence that influenced their decision. The same private bullshit he is historically known for. I still have my reservations behind what really happened, but I'll humor this for argument's sake. Mr Mitchell stands so strong behind this event that it's worth looking at whether there's any veracity now that the package is in the court record. With all the advancements in the case, many major points now aren't consistent with what he's presenting to the court, including his claim about live scores, and his now-former friends he has blackened in an effort to make himself look better. The contradictions between it and the current evidence should raise questions of whether Guinness actually did any investigation. There's probably some more I'm missing, but I currently don't have the time to read over all of that package again.
Lastly, GWR is supposed to have "undisputed, longstanding leadership in the gaming community" according to BM. It is common knowledge, at least around here, that Twin Galaxies was a source for gaming records. TG explicitly stated that they contacted Guinness for both Todd Rogers's and Mr Mitchell's records; multiple news outlets followed suit reporting such. If Guinness was its own record-keeping entity, would it really have been so reliant on other companies for its gaming world records? I won't (can't, really) explain the broken logistics behind restoring a score its original providers have rescinded, but BM is definitely overplaying what Guinness does here.
this is making its rounds on facebook. i realize sharing this could count as sharing a rumor but i also know the people here can debunk or verify it faster than the facebook crew
The "Minute Order" you attached was issued by the court earlier today. It references the issuance of a written decision pertaining to two motions that were submitted on 15 October, but the written decision itself hasn't been posted at the lacourt.org website yet. The attachment confirms that TG's motion for undertaking was granted, meaning that Mitchell is required to post a bond of approx. $81,000 since Mitchell is an out of state resident and TG has a reasonable chance of prevailing. As I understand, the amount of the bond pertains to TG counsel's projected costs for deposing the series of witnesses that Mitchell cited in his evidentiary submissions. The ambiguity for me is that the Minute doesn't reference the court's decision on second motion, the anti-slapp. You would think that the requirement to post bond would be moot if the lawsuit itself was dismissed as part of the anti-slapp, but ultimately the written ruling would clarify this issue.