Post Verdict Dispute Discussion: Jeremy Young - Arcade - Donkey Kong - Points [Hammer Allowed] - Player: Billy L Mitchell - Score: 1,062,800

  1. 11-15-2020, 01:48 PM
    There is so much info that has came out in the past couple years its hard to keep up. This was probably already found but here is an interesting link.

    http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/c...ages/aw/09.htm
    Thanks JJT_Defender thanked this post
    Likes The Evener, JJT_Defender liked this post
  2. 11-16-2020, 04:12 AM
    Brand new video by Karl Jobst: "Gaming's Biggest Conman Billy Mitchell Is Being Sued For Millions!"

    Last edited by Jace Hall; 11-16-2020 at 07:39 AM.
    Thanks maximumsteve, Foot0fGod, JJT_Defender thanked this post
  3. 11-16-2020, 05:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninglendo View Post
    There is so much info that has came out in the past couple years its hard to keep up. This was probably already found but here is an interesting link.

    http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/c...ages/aw/09.htm
    Thanks for drawing attention to photo from Mitchell's playback of the 1.047 million score in August 2005 at the CGE UK. Although there's no screen transition, one notes the monitor's orientation, which is a secondary signature of MAME playback. I do recall that there was an exhibit submission from another tech in Mitchell's court submission that attempted to refute this signature (recall that we also see this monitor orientation in the middle of King of Kong) as something that arcade could do when outputting via a Two Bit Converter to VCR. However, to do this would require major futzing with the PCB, which runs against Mitchell's repeated sworn statements that his PCB was inspected and approved by Nintendo's engineer Wayne as untampered with. So I guess you have your choice in Mitchell's court submissions - either accept that the PCB was indeed futzed and thus non-original and therefore was invalid for score submission purposes, or accept Mitchell's claim that there was a PCB that was original non-modified vetted by a Nintendo employee - although this PCB wasn't used in the submitted score as evidenced by video playback.

    Sometimes what's old is new again when reviewing evidence, and I wanted to share an interview that I don't believe was previously aired in the dispute or post-dispute thread. Back in the August 2007 issue of Gameroom Magazine, editor Mitch Gerson walks readers through his sneak peak of the King of Kong, and also snags interviews with Wiebe and Walter Day. Both are interesting reads but my focus here is Day's interview.

    Name:  Interviewsnippet.png
Views: 502
Size:  149.4 KB

    https://web.archive.org/web/20071011.../PDF/AUG07.pdf

    You can tell immediately that he's deeply upset about KoK for how the film portrays Billy Mitchell. But what I found more interesting was finding yet another example of how his recollection of Mitchell's famous 1.047 million Donkey Kong score - done only two years earlier at Funspot and formally approved as a world record in 2006 - was completely changed in his recent court submission.

    In his sworn court declaration (Exhibit A), Day states that "In June 2005, at Funspot, I watched the video of Billy Mitchell achieving a Donkey Kong score of 1,047,200. During this time, Billy Mitchell made it very clear that this taped score [the 1.047 million tape] was for entertainment purposes only, not for submission, as he only submits live world records. However, I chose to input the score for The King of Kong's entertainment purposes, but made sure the score was removed from the database after the event was over."

    Now we've long debunked this with other interviews and forum posts from Day himself. So much so, that Mitchell essentially abandoned the "the 1.047 million score was not an official submission" stance in his recent sworn court submission (it didn't help that Guinness gave him the "First Million Point Donkey Kong Game" record back, which was tied to the 1.047 million score). However, Day's sworn court-submitted declaration maintains this line of argumentation. I presume that when deposed, TG counsel will have the opportunity to scrutinize this more closely, both for Day's declaration, and Mitchell's own changing view of his score.

    Specifically, I recalled how Mitchell mocked Jace Hall in the original Billy Mitchell Evidence Package for pointing out that the 1.047 million score was reviewed by multiple referees at Funspot:

    Figure 6: William "Billy" Mitchell statement:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BMb...oQiuAdgcJ/view

    "5. During the Twin Galaxies investigation, in early March, I explained to Jace Hall that I never submitted the 1,047,200 performance. Hall responded by citing the King of Kong movie as proof to the contrary, stating 'there were half a dozen referees in the cabin verifying the tape that night.'

    I responsed first by calling out his claim the referees were adjudicating that tape, and I challenged him to ask those referees if they were adjudicating or documenting in any way."

    Here's what Day had to say in his 2007 Gameroom interview about that:

    "As for my acceptance of the tape at that moment in the movie, the tape had just been viewed in front of 40 people, ten of whom were referees and I, completely believing that the frame-skip glitch would prove to be no problem, decided to put Billy Mitchell’s score into the database. This was on the Saturday night of the Funspot 2005 event."

    Got it.

    To loop us back to the CGE UK event, there's a very interesting discussion on Facebook about the fact that in additional to Mitchell's 1.047 million score, CGE UK attendees also had the chance to watch a playback of a Perfect Pac-Man game at the TG table. One might reasonably assume that, given the presence of Mitchell who was lauded as the world's first perfect player, was on hand to show off that pivotal 1999 Funspot performance. However, it's been confirmed by David Race that the Pac-Man video was actually Chris Ayra's Perfect Pac-Man game from 2000.

    CGE UK 2005: Pac-Man playback (Mitchell to immediate left)

    Name:  MitchellCGEUK2005.jpg
Views: 490
Size:  10.8 KB

    Chris Ayra's Perfect game - Feb 2000

    Name:  Ayra16Feb2000.jpg
Views: 496
Size:  18.8 KB

    Given that Mitchell was presented as the world's first Perfect Pac-Man player, the decision to play back Ayra's tape is raising some eyebrows. Did the small crowd that gathered around the TV monitor at TG's table understand that the video was not Mitchell's?
    Last edited by The Evener; 11-16-2020 at 07:05 AM.
    Thanks ersatz_cats, lexmark, JJT_Defender thanked this post
    Likes ersatz_cats, lexmark, Barra, JJT_Defender liked this post
  4. 11-16-2020, 08:05 AM
    On the heels of the Karl Jobst Piece...
  5. 11-16-2020, 08:46 AM
    In addition to the outstanding Karl Jobst video, and the conference call between Carlos Pineiro, David Race, Steve Kleisath, and myself (which Steve just posted), we ALSO over at Donkey Kong Forum have a written interview with Steve Kleisath all about his time working with "Team Billy", in his attempts to exonerate a man he thought was his friend. Steve and I have been working on this interview for quite a while, it is very detailed, and I'm super glad this can now see the light of day. Enjoy!

    http://donkeykongforum.com/index.php?topic=2804.0
  6. 11-18-2020, 04:50 PM
    What's really disappointing me about Walter is the faked "Video Game Player of the Century" award. He and Billy had us completely duped on that one, but Karl's video shows it clear as 'Day' that Walter and Billy made the title up on their own, and Namco had ZERO to do with it.
    Thanks JJT_Defender thanked this post
  7. 11-19-2020, 03:58 AM
    We have a court update!! Spoiler: Bad news for cheaters. :)

    On November 16, Billy's lawyer, James Gibbons, filed fourteen pages with the rather lengthy title of "Ex parte application to stay October 26, 2020 order regarding undertaking in light of defendant's appeal of anti-SLAPP denial and resulting litigation stay". Say that ten times fast!

    What exactly does that mean? The filing itself makes it clear in plainer language. Recall that, late October, the court ruled in Billy's favor on the anti-SLAPP motion (if, somehow, you missed Billy proclaiming his "victory" all throughout the Internet). The anti-SLAPP motion, if granted, would have tossed the case out of court and forced Billy to pay TG's legal fees. Worth noting is that Billy pushed his case past anti-SLAPP by lying through his teeth, and relying on anti-SLAPP rules that his case must be accepted "on the face of it" (i.e., the proof of his lying can't be considered), but that's a story for another day. (See previous entries in this thread for more on that.) Anyway, on the other end, at the same time as the anti-SLAPP ruling, the court granted a motion from Twin Galaxies that requires Billy to provide an "undertaking" to proceed with this case. Basically, an "undertaking" is a deposit, to be used in the event Twin Galaxies is awarded legal fees later down the line. The amount requested was based on an itemized list, mostly relating to the cost to travel and conduct depositions from witnesses across the country and overseas. While the court was at its discretion to approve any amount for the undertaking, the court granted the entire amount requested. While I can't speak from personal experience, I have been told that is unusual.

    Bringing us to current events, Twin Galaxies did finally file an appeal to the anti-SLAPP ruling earlier this week. The process of litigating this case is on hold until that appeal runs its course. For that reason, Gibbons argues that the undertaking should be held off until that appeal is decided:

    Name:  Motion - 1.png
Views: 258
Size:  81.3 KB


    Gibbons cites case law regarding the undertaking statute, highlighting that the appeal process could take as long as 18 months, and arguing that TG's costs during that time will be minimal, compared to the itemized list TG submitted to justify the undertaking:

    Name:  Motion - 2.png
Views: 258
Size:  67.5 KB


    Gibbons argues that it's unfair to his client (Mr. Mullet) to be required to post a bond and deprive him of funds for costs that may not even be incurred for another 18 months, while again stressing his belief that TG's costs litigating the appeals ought to be low:

    Name:  Motion - 3.png
Views: 256
Size:  47.7 KB


    Gibbons then puts forward a rather generous interpretation of the court's anti-SLAPP ruling. He cites case law stating that the purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to "prevent out-of-state residents from filing frivolous lawsuits against California residents." Gibbons then argues that the fact that Billy prevailed on the anti-SLAPP motion (which is being appealed) is proof that Billy's action is "far from frivolous", and that there was a "probability" that Billy would win the case:

    Name:  Motion - 4.png
Views: 255
Size:  43.4 KB


    "Probability" in italics, no less! Must mean it's that magic "probability" that means "literally just greater than zero, however infinitesimal". Although strange that it's presented here as though it means, in common vernacular, "more than likely".

    Gibbons also goes a step further to argue that Twin Galaxies' appeal suggests "bad faith" practices. He argues it was unfair of TG to request an undertaking when it knew all along it would appeal the anti-SLAPP ruling:

    Name:  Motion - 5.png
Views: 256
Size:  42.3 KB


    One thing to note, which you may have noticed above. Gibbons states that Billy does indeed intend to pay the undertaking with a cashier's check. Gibbons says it again, in his declaration on page 8:

    Name:  Motion - 6.png
Views: 258
Size:  98.0 KB


    Also, an amusing side note.... In the filing, Billy's lawyer references a bunch of events from October and November... but his signature is dated all the way back in July! Hope Dwayne hasn't been loaning out his time machine!

    Another side note: Up until now, I haven't referred to Billy's attorney much by name. In writing this update, I felt an urge to refer to him as "Greasy Gibbons". (Emphasis on "Greasy". I'm not trying to imply he is multiple members of the Hylobatidae ape family.) "Greasy Gibbons" is nice and alliterative. But I thought, you know, maybe that's not fair. Surely by now he knows his client is a liar, a cheater, and a fraud, but this Billy thing is just one case. Sometimes, you just do what you gotta do to pay the bills, right?

    So I looked him up, and I found his profile page, on the site of that law firm Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Vader, and Luthor, or whatever. Check this out:

    Name:  Name - 1.png
Views: 254
Size:  12.8 KB


    http://www.manningllp.com/our-team/J....ToKDvBLg.dpbs

    He represented the San Diego business alliance AGAINST the ACLU, in a case involving the property rights of homeless people (you know, people who are basically defined as having the least property of anyone). And it's not like this was a regretful day of holding his nose and doing his job. He's so proud of it, he put it in his bio! So yeah, I'm gonna run with "Greasy Gibbons" from here on.

    Also, I'll add a picture, not because I care what the guy looks like, but because it would amuse me if this picture started showing up under searches for "Greasy Gibbons":

    Name:  Picture - 1.jpg
Views: 256
Size:  36.3 KB


    Anyway, back to the main event. Where Greasy Gibbons took fourteen pages to make his case, the Mighty Mr. Tash (Twin Galaxies' lawyer) took only six. First, Tash sets the stage, referring to this application as "a misguided attempt" to use the unrelated anti-SLAPP appeal to either postpone the undertaking or to have the court reconsider the ruling altogether. Tash points out, among other things, that Gibbons presented no new facts (you know, those things that might make the court consider a change to the ruling), and also that Gibbons' request was made too late:

    Name:  Reply - 1.png
Views: 258
Size:  63.5 KB


    Tash argues that the motion for undertaking and the appeal of anti-SLAPP, as a matter of law, have nothing to do with each other. More to the point, Gibbons made no effort to correlate the two:

    Name:  Reply - 2.png
Views: 269
Size:  53.8 KB


    Tash also lists the sort of fees that will be incurred during appeal, and that case law specifically provides for defendants recovering those costs as well:

    Name:  Reply - 3.png
Views: 256
Size:  58.2 KB


    Remember how Gibbons argued that it would be unfair to tie up Billy's money for 18 months of appeals? Well, Tash also points out that the actual case would tie up that money for at least 18 months anyway, so that argument of Gibbons' (at least as it was presented) would thus be without merit:

    Name:  Reply - 4.png
Views: 261
Size:  47.2 KB


    Here's where Tash really spells it out. TG already showed a reasonable probability of winning this case, and the court ordered the full undertaking based on that case. Again, Gibbons did not present any new facts. Literally the only thing that changed is that TG filed an appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling:

    Name:  Reply - 5.png
Views: 256
Size:  53.2 KB


    As to the argument of "bad faith", Tash simply points out that the court had their chance to rule on undertaking, and they did. Tash adds, "This flailing attempt to persuade the Court to stay enforcement of the bond motion is pathetic and should carry no weight":

    Name:  Reply - 6.png
Views: 257
Size:  34.7 KB


    Gibbons needed fourteen pages for the request, Tash needed six for the response, and on Wednesday, the court needed only one page for their ruling:

    Name:  Ruling - 1.png
Views: 258
Size:  57.9 KB


    Plaintiff's application is Denied.

    Bad day for Team Billy. Time to pay up or shut up. Maybe Greasy Gibbons can cheer himself up by spitting on more homeless people.
  8. 11-19-2020, 07:14 AM
    Thanks for that information and analysis. Truly, you've been a student of this dispute and I've learned several nuanced bits from your write-ups. I appreciate your efforts. There's really no reason you would care what I think on this, but I hope I can make a constructive criticism and have it received in the spirit it was given.

    Name-calling Mitchell's lawyer is childish and diminishes the quality of your rhetoric.

    Ok, that said, I'm not admonishing you to change tactics. I'm just hoping my read might be of some use. Thanks again for your efforts.
    Thanks JJT_Defender, ersatz_cats thanked this post
    Likes JJT_Defender, ersatz_cats, Fly, Rev John liked this post
  9. 11-19-2020, 08:40 AM
    I, for one, enjoy your name-calling. Y'all need to stop being so serious and do pure and have a little fun at the expense of these absolute ghoul people. Not too much, sure, but a little as a guilty pleasure. Life is short! Call a shameful lawyer doing everything in his power to destroy your community "greasy!" Don't deny your base humanity, just as you shouldn't overindulge in it, either. Middle way, guys.
    Thanks JJT_Defender, ersatz_cats thanked this post
    Likes Snowflake, JJT_Defender, ersatz_cats liked this post
  10. 11-19-2020, 08:47 AM
    I can't help but agree. In that same paragraph ersatz wanted to bring up, it is stated he helped find a solution beneficial for both sides. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I know how the lawyer trade works. In the adversarial system we use winning is the main goal and sometimes you can't approach it within ethics. For example, if Todd Rogers were to testify in court, Tashroudian would have to bring up points irrelevant to his testimony during cross-examination to disprove his credibility (such as being banned from TG for suspicious scores). I did hear that Todd overturned a ref's rejection of BM's taped submission, and if that is true then it would be a far more relevant point. I thought it was scummy when I saw another defense attorney try to discredit witnesses, but I won't hold double standards just because I'm on the opposite side now.
    Unless this lawyer is a friend of his I would rather not open the gates any more than we need to. I mean, the rumor of him working pro bono does speak to some level of shadiness, but we already know how Mr. Mitchell always likes to have his way. Let's just leave the bashing at Mitchell, lest we open the door for associates to get harassed again like what happened to Carlos.
    Last edited by Streetwize; 11-19-2020 at 02:01 PM.
    Thanks JJT_Defender thanked this post
    Likes Snowflake, JJT_Defender, ersatz_cats liked this post
Page 67 of 81 FirstFirst ... 17 57 65 66 67 68 69 77 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 803
Page 67 of 81 FirstFirst ... 17 57 65 66 67 68 69 77 ... LastLast
Join us