From the small amount of info in the article, it sounds like the judge didn’t like that someone “small” was trying to take on someone “big”. I have received similar bullshit sentences in court against banks (you are just trying to take advantage of the big guy so you get nothing), so my first instinct is to doubt the decision was fair
Uhh… clearly you didn’t even read the article mate.
According to the judge, the 2020 settlement between Mitchell and Smith never involved any money. Smith was told to remove any YouTube videos and social media posts he made relating to Mitchell. He was also required to hand over copyright of those removed videos to Mitchell, and to stop publishing content about Mitchell or face a $25,000 fine for each incident.
Jobst had originally claimed that Smith was ordered to pay Mitchell $1 million. Jobst edited the video several times while it was online, once after Mitchell suggested he intended to sue, and again after Smith’s brother confirmed no money had been exchanged in the settlement between Mitchell and Smith.
Guy claimed Mitchel caused the dudes suicide because of debt, there was zero money involved in the lawsuit, then the guy tried to hide it. Guy defamed mitchel, got caught, tried hiding it.
And you want to claim what here? Maybe just read the article mate.
The judge also referred to an interview in which Jobst said, “Billy Mitchell needs to be destroyed in court […] I am the last chance for the public to punish Billy.”
There’s no “Reddit attitude” here, if anything, the stupidness of people commenting without reading an article in it’s entirety is what’s boiling over from that cesspool. I think someone protests too much……
Again, I read the entire article. Karl or the pope or whoever else can go on whatever crusade they want, it is not the judge’s place to stop that. If on that crusade they say lies or libel or whatever, apply the law on them, be my guest. But don’t do it because they were on a crusade. Don’t let that influence the decision, because that is not against the law in itself.
I don’t give 2 fucks if Karl or Mitchell is right or wrong, I’m only talking about the judge and how fucked up the justice system is by leaving the final decision in the hands of admittedly fallible people.
When the judge, the authority that has final say on the matter, mentions they considered something that is not forbidden in their decision, it sours my view of it and the justice system.
Even if the final legal document does not contain that as part of the reason for the sentence, I can’t avoid thinking that the judge’s mindset was pointing towards that (that being “I’ll take this guy down a peg because he thinks himself as some big defender of justice, when I’m the only one that can do that”)
They did decide because of the defamation. Anything about the decision being about anything else is purely in your head.
And fuck the judge for showing some character and insulting them I guess? They’re potentially wasting your tax money and wasting courts precious time and you want to allow this apparently? Shit take dude.
You just want some stooge to parrot corp speak? Jesus Christ, what the hell does that have to do with the article?
If you read it, than you’re just a troll bloviating.
Chill man, I didn’t insult anyone, I just said I don’t trust judges from personal experience, and that phrase reminded me of that.
And no, I don’t want judges to show character. I want them to be impartial. When a judge fucks up a case of yours because they are stupid/have an agenda, you will understand the sentiment.
Apt timing. My FiL pulled out my wife’s GBC just an hour ago. It’s a pearlescent Pokémon Center edition with Gold/Silver Pokémon on it. Was just playing it a bit moments before finding this thread.
The excitement of getting one of the original bad boys for Christmas and being glued to Super Mario and Tetris for years. Then Pokémon Yellow. Was pure magic.
techspot.com
Aktywne