Jim Sterling in court.

[JimB]

I remember name-calling. If there wasn't, it will be significantly more difficult for the idiot bros.

Okay, so...do you remember where and when it happened?

In that youtube interview one of the Romine brothers basically tries to put down Jim as evil, going to listen to it again to see if I can find some badmouthing.

I know he meant the other way around but it goes back and forth between these two so I don't think anyone can get to anyone on that note.

If Jim Sterling ever said, "You buy assets from stores, so you're a pathetic developer," then that interview would just about have to be the place he said it: It's the only thing in the DigiHom saga I haven't paid attention to. I tried listening to it and just about died of contact embarrassment before five minutes were up. Had to shut it down and go listen to Markiplier shriek about ass-blasting bitcheloids by way or antidote.

 

[rcs619]

They aren't suing about his videos if I'm wholly correct here I think it's the posts on his own website?

Anyway is there anyone here who has the Arizona law statutes for me I can pick through them, I don't know if Arizona's law covers the necessity of intent in defamation/libel.

The main defense Jim will use is that due to earlier proven claims it was easy for him to make a mistake, when the mistake was found he retracted the statements covering that.
On all other claims he can go for his fair use and the immediate distance he has from his audience but on this specific case it is important to know if

Edit: whoops didn't see that last part of your post.

As far as I'm aware, whether he made a mistake or not is irrelevant. A judge isn't going to care of Jim called Digital Homicide bad names, or even that he made a mistake in an article about them. The mistake makes it possible for them to sue for slander/libel, technically, but if they can't prove specific monetary damages as a result of said mistake, then it doesn't matter.

If the only standard for slander and libel was making a mistake and saying something that wasn't true, everyone would be sued for slander and libel constantly. They have to show that they incurred damages, and I don't think they can do that.

They talk about how their profits dropped in their court filing, but I would bet good, hard money that they dropped as a result of Jim's reviews and criticism, *not* one or two sentences in an otherwise factually true article about how they created a legion of spin-off, sock-puppet game studios so that they could publish games without people knowing that the games were made by Digital Homicide.

Newspapers and other journalists make minor mistakes all the time. People get facts wrong. They usually get retracted and nothing ever comes of it, because 99% of the time a tiny mistake will cause no damage to someone. Digital Homicide is using the tiniest technicality to get Jim into court, and are just throwing everything they can at the wall in the hope that something sticks. Look at their filing. It's a rambling mess, and most of their complaints aren't actually related to the one thing they can actually sue over (that one mistake in that one article).

 

[Fsyco]

Do they even have minimum contact for this case? I don't think Internet sales are enough to establish that, so the Arizona court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over Jim.

 

[rcs619]

Do they even have minimum contact for this case? I don't think Internet sales are enough to establish that, so the Arizona court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over Jim.

They fired it with a US District Court, which is federal. I believe they're basically claiming that since Jim's content is publicly available in Arizona then it's the same as if he'd published it in Arizona. I believe there's some old court precedent that they are roughly using for this.

There was an article I saw that actually broke down some of the precedents DH would be leaning on for this, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

 

[Fsyco]

Do they even have minimum contact for this case? I don't think Internet sales are enough to establish that, so the Arizona court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over Jim.

They fired it with a US District Court, which is federal. I believe they're basically claiming that since Jim's content is publicly available in Arizona then it's the same as if he'd published it in Arizona. I believe there's some old court precedent that they are roughly using for this.

There was an article I saw that actually broke down some of the precedents DH would be leaning on for this, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

The only precedent I saw them cite for this was Shoe Co v. Washington, claiming that Arizona has personal jurisdiction over Jim because he sells things that people in Arizona can buy. I ran this by a lawyer I know and he said that DH is basically grasping at straws. He publishes stuff online that is accessible in Arizona, and sells things online that can be purchased in Arizona, but he doesn't really "do business" there, nor have any vested interests there. It's all probably up to the interpretation of the judge, but my money is on Arizona not having jurisdiction.

If you do find that article, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[SweetShark]

So I decided to search if Arizona Court laws have something unique on them.....and I think I found what DigiHom want to do:

Its seems DigiHom can present ONLY a single publication statement made by Jim which they can use from their case.

In summary, a defamation claim will arise when an individual publishes, i.e., communicates to a third party, a false and defamatory statement while knowing the statement was false, recklessly disregarding the veracity of the statement, or negligently failing to ascertain the truth of the statement.

So it seems DigiHom best bet is Jim's article like the other users said already.

Also I think will use "Negligent In Ascertaining Statement?s Truth" rule as well:

Negligence is conduct which creates an unreasonable risk of harm. It is the failure to use that amount of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances

Yep, Jim is f*cked if this is truth because lets face it, even if the damage wasn't so high as DigiHom are claiming, it is still a Damage for them.

 

[rcs619]

The only precedent I saw them cite for this was Shoe Co v. Washington, claiming that Arizona has personal jurisdiction over Jim because he sells things that people in Arizona can buy. I ran this by a lawyer I know and he said that DH is basically grasping at straws. He publishes stuff online that is accessible in Arizona, and sells things online that can be purchased in Arizona, but he doesn't really "do business" there, nor have any vested interests there. It's all probably up to the interpretation of the judge, but my money is on Arizona not having jurisdiction.

If you do find that article, I'd be interested in reading it.

That's the case. I thought I remembered it having to do something with shoes.

And yeah, they're just grasping at straws in general I think. Most of their filing isn't even about the one mistake Jim made in that one article. It's about how he 'dragged their name through the mud' and how he called them mean names, and how they claim he 'directed' his fans to harass and attack them. Not to mention the bit where they claim most of their online harassers are actually competing game developers using anonymity, and the opportunity Jim made for them, to try and drive Digital Homicide out of the marketplace.

It's just a rambling mess that I imagine any sane judge would toss out 90% of right off the bat. They just want to use the one legal technicality they are able to sue for to get Jim in court and hope that some of the other stuff happens to stick. Their legal strategy is as mismatched and cobbled together as their videogames are.

I wonder what they're going to say when Jim wins? Probably something about Jim/Maker Studios/Disney bribing the judge or some shit. I look forward to seeing out they try to cover their own ass and save some tiny bit of face in their own eyes.

 

[SweetShark]

Do they even have minimum contact for this case? I don't think Internet sales are enough to establish that, so the Arizona court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over Jim.

They fired it with a US District Court, which is federal. I believe they're basically claiming that since Jim's content is publicly available in Arizona then it's the same as if he'd published it in Arizona. I believe there's some old court precedent that they are roughly using for this.

There was an article I saw that actually broke down some of the precedents DH would be leaning on for this, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

The only precedent I saw them cite for this was Shoe Co v. Washington, claiming that Arizona has personal jurisdiction over Jim because he sells things that people in Arizona can buy. I ran this by a lawyer I know and he said that DH is basically grasping at straws. He publishes stuff online that is accessible in Arizona, and sells things online that can be purchased in Arizona, but he doesn't really "do business" there, nor have any vested interests there. It's all probably up to the interpretation of the judge, but my money is on Arizona not having jurisdiction.

If you do find that article, I'd be interested in reading it.

What it have to do with the public statement DigiHom want to present into the Arizona Courts?
Also Jim selling? What kind of products Jim sells? As far I know he just sold the rights to a company to create different kind of T-shirts and similar things....

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Do they even have minimum contact for this case? I don't think Internet sales are enough to establish that, so the Arizona court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over Jim.

They fired it with a US District Court, which is federal. I believe they're basically claiming that since Jim's content is publicly available in Arizona then it's the same as if he'd published it in Arizona. I believe there's some old court precedent that they are roughly using for this.

There was an article I saw that actually broke down some of the precedents DH would be leaning on for this, but I can't find it again for the life of me.

The only precedent I saw them cite for this was Shoe Co v. Washington, claiming that Arizona has personal jurisdiction over Jim because he sells things that people in Arizona can buy. I ran this by a lawyer I know and he said that DH is basically grasping at straws. He publishes stuff online that is accessible in Arizona, and sells things online that can be purchased in Arizona, but he doesn't really "do business" there, nor have any vested interests there. It's all probably up to the interpretation of the judge, but my money is on Arizona not having jurisdiction.

If you do find that article, I'd be interested in reading it.

What it have to do with the public statement DigiHom want to present into the Arizona Courts?
Also Jim selling? What kind of products Jim sells? As far I know he just sold the rights to a company to create different kind of T-shirts and similar things....

I think they're banking on two things. One is patreon(since people can donate from Arizona) or being able to view this website and videos in Arizona. I'm pretty sure the law we're talking about probably doesn't even factor in the Internet so I'm not sure how this is going to go down.

 

[Politrukk]

They aren't suing about his videos if I'm wholly correct here I think it's the posts on his own website?

Anyway is there anyone here who has the Arizona law statutes for me I can pick through them, I don't know if Arizona's law covers the necessity of intent in defamation/libel.

The main defense Jim will use is that due to earlier proven claims it was easy for him to make a mistake, when the mistake was found he retracted the statements covering that.
On all other claims he can go for his fair use and the immediate distance he has from his audience but on this specific case it is important to know if

Edit: whoops didn't see that last part of your post.

As far as I'm aware, whether he made a mistake or not is irrelevant. A judge isn't going to care of Jim called Digital Homicide bad names, or even that he made a mistake in an article about them. The mistake makes it possible for them to sue for slander/libel, technically, but if they can't prove specific monetary damages as a result of said mistake, then it doesn't matter.

If the only standard for slander and libel was making a mistake and saying something that wasn't true, everyone would be sued for slander and libel constantly. They have to show that they incurred damages, and I don't think they can do that.

They talk about how their profits dropped in their court filing, but I would bet good, hard money that they dropped as a result of Jim's reviews and criticism, *not* one or two sentences in an otherwise factually true article about how they created a legion of spin-off, sock-puppet game studios so that they could publish games without people knowing that the games were made by Digital Homicide.

Newspapers and other journalists make minor mistakes all the time. People get facts wrong. They usually get retracted and nothing ever comes of it, because 99% of the time a tiny mistake will cause no damage to someone. Digital Homicide is using the tiniest technicality to get Jim into court, and are just throwing everything they can at the wall in the hope that something sticks. Look at their filing. It's a rambling mess, and most of their complaints aren't actually related to the one thing they can actually sue over (that one mistake in that one article).

I was looking at this from a lawmans perspective, over here if you can't show intent for libel the whole case gets thrown immediately.

Their harassment claim is whilst in a small way valid built on the same principle.

So i'm wondering if anyone has a source for these statutes in AZ law so I can review them.

Edit:
found it in another posters quote

"In summary, a defamation claim will arise when an individual publishes, i.e., communicates to a third party, a false and defamatory statement while knowing the statement was false, recklessly disregarding the veracity of the statement, or negligently failing to ascertain the truth of the statement"

Intent has to be established, there was none it was an honest mistake due to previous actions(DH admitted to Jim that they flipped assets and that they once admitted to purchasing a stolen license so this can cover negligence), case thrown, next.

 

[Politrukk]

So I decided to search if Arizona Court laws have something unique on them.....and I think I found what DigiHom want to do:

Its seems DigiHom can present ONLY a single publication statement made by Jim which they can use from their case.

In summary, a defamation claim will arise when an individual publishes, i.e., communicates to a third party, a false and defamatory statement while knowing the statement was false, recklessly disregarding the veracity of the statement, or negligently failing to ascertain the truth of the statement.

So it seems DigiHom best bet is Jim's article like the other users said already.

Also I think will use "Negligent In Ascertaining Statement?s Truth" rule as well:

Negligence is conduct which creates an unreasonable risk of harm. It is the failure to use that amount of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances

Yep, Jim is f*cked if this is truth because lets face it, even if the damage wasn't so high as DigiHom are claiming, it is still a Damage for them.

can you provide your source? in PM perhaps?

 

[JimB]

Can you provide your source?

Just copy and paste it to Google. This [http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/the-elements-of-a-defamation-claim-in-arizona/] shows up.

 

[Politrukk]

Can you provide your source?

Just copy and paste it to Google. This [http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/the-elements-of-a-defamation-claim-in-arizona/] shows up.

Okay I'll try to shortly summarize what's relevant according to this.

1. under Arizona law, Jim can only be sued for 1 view/count(noted as cause) of his supposed defamation.

2. Jim cannot be sued for ridiculing DH because they went along and did the interview/videos themselves and there's been a back and forth (causing context to be applied here).

3. Arizona does not admit statements of pure opinion, every opinion is in some light seen as based upon a fact otherwise defamation may occur (in this case Jim's false opinion on the fact is wrapped in a whole lot of right opinions based on fact.)

4. Jim may very well fullfil the required acquisition of knowledge based on the companies prior history although they may hold him accountable, however, the fact that he retracted the single statement immediately upon learning of his error speaks for him on this matter.

5. Supporting point 4. Jim was not reckless because he had reason to believe that DH were involved in bad practice yet again : they'd done it before and he could not have known that a company that had admitted to flipping assets and wrongfully using licensed material before would this time actually have improved upon that.

6. To prove negligence (and therefore intent) DH would need proof that Jim did everything on purpose, which due to his retraction falls flat.

7. Damages, well despite their size DH is sort of a ruined company now and yes that may in part be to Jim, but Jim so far has only pointed out their bad business ethic and product quality.

8. The lawsuit is legitimate as far as it falls within the prerequisite time limit that these cases have.

9. Untill disproven the comments Jim makes about the Polish developer are of an inquisitive nature, he is still in a way a member of the press so the fact that he's writing articles about something that might actually become a legal battle keeps him safe on that end even if it does damage DH.

10. in relation to 9. Jim has not intentionally defamed he's been doing this as he's stumbled upon bad practice from DH and was investigating it and keeping people updated about what he learned and came across, if anything that's more of a legal battle between the original Polish company and DH.

11. Jim may be found guilty if DH can convince the court that his coverage of them was excessive.

12. If the Arizona court finds Jim a public figure, DH must prove intent regardless of all that went before.

13 Investigation on other forums seems to have shown that the Shutterstock receipt was dated post-release for the games that Jim called into question.



Conclusion:
It can go either way, there's a lot speaking for Jim but there are several technicalities and opinion based situations that could bite him in the ass here.



edit:

Actually what Jim did might qualify as rectifiying his mistake rather than retracting it now that I come to think of it.

He editted what was published before, now that isn't the same as a published statement but the internet just works differently and we could say that an edit supports this especially in the manner Jim has done it.

 

[SweetShark]

Can you provide your source?

Just copy and paste it to Google. This [http://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/legal-articles/the-elements-of-a-defamation-claim-in-arizona/] shows up.

Ha! Yes, this is the one. I wanted to post it later, but you did it first.

 

[Monsterfurby]

I wonder what they're going to say when Jim wins? Probably something about Jim/Maker Studios/Disney bribing the judge or some shit. I look forward to seeing out they try to cover their own ass and save some tiny bit of face in their own eyes.

I'm genuinely worried that, given the obvious mental state of the DH guy, that outcome might cause him to fully snap.

 

[Fsyco]

That's the case. I thought I remembered it having to do something with shoes.

And yeah, they're just grasping at straws in general I think. Most of their filing isn't even about the one mistake Jim made in that one article. It's about how he 'dragged their name through the mud' and how he called them mean names, and how they claim he 'directed' his fans to harass and attack them. Not to mention the bit where they claim most of their online harassers are actually competing game developers using anonymity, and the opportunity Jim made for them, to try and drive Digital Homicide out of the marketplace.

It's just a rambling mess that I imagine any sane judge would toss out 90% of right off the bat. They just want to use the one legal technicality they are able to sue for to get Jim in court and hope that some of the other stuff happens to stick. Their legal strategy is as mismatched and cobbled together as their videogames are.

I wonder what they're going to say when Jim wins? Probably something about Jim/Maker Studios/Disney bribing the judge or some shit. I look forward to seeing out they try to cover their own ass and save some tiny bit of face in their own eyes.

Accusing Jim of bribing a judge would, funnily enough, be a defamatory claim that Jim could easily sue for.

Even if they do get that one claim to 'stick', there's ALOT of hoops Jim can make them jump through to make their life hard (the ones I know about are the jurisdiction thing, anti-SLAPP, and showing that DH is "in the public eye" or something). I don't see this ending well for DH, but I do imagine they'll try their darnedest.

What it have to do with the public statement DigiHom want to present into the Arizona Courts?
Also Jim selling? What kind of products Jim sells? As far I know he just sold the rights to a company to create different kind of T-shirts and similar things....

DigiHom is claiming that Jim's tshirt sales through SharkRobot, as well as the contributions to Patreon, establish minimum contact.

 

[KaraFang]

I look at it this way:

Jim knows what DH are suing him for.

He has a lawyer.

He does not look worried and has been advising that he's "fine" and it'll be okay.

Considering DH has a history so far in this battle of a lot of hot air, I know who I will look to in their behavior for the concerned/not strong position party. In this case, I don't feel it's Jim.

He and his legal team know what they are doing. He has not had to ask for funds to help him sue... speaks volumes.

 

[Kanatatsu]

Lawyer here. DH has zero case. Zip. I'd bet just about anything that their claim gets thrown out with costs awarded to Sterling.

 

[syaoran728]

So I decided to search if Arizona Court laws have something unique on them.....and I think I found what DigiHom want to do:

Its seems DigiHom can present ONLY a single publication statement made by Jim which they can use from their case.

In summary, a defamation claim will arise when an individual publishes, i.e., communicates to a third party, a false and defamatory statement while knowing the statement was false, recklessly disregarding the veracity of the statement, or negligently failing to ascertain the truth of the statement.

So it seems DigiHom best bet is Jim's article like the other users said already.

Also I think will use "Negligent In Ascertaining Statement?s Truth" rule as well:

Negligence is conduct which creates an unreasonable risk of harm. It is the failure to use that amount of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under like circumstances

Yep, Jim is f*cked if this is truth because lets face it, even if the damage wasn't so high as DigiHom are claiming, it is still a Damage for them.

One problem for DH: They're suing him based on the one article which Jim corrected, but the damages they are claiming are from the entire back and forth between the two. Even if they are able to sue him for that article, they won't be able to get any claims because that article is not what has caused their company's reputation to be what it is.