Logan Paul's Mistakes Are Worse Than We Thought | LAWYER EXPLAINS

In this video we follow up on some of the legal mistakes that arose in the controversy between Logan Paul and Coffeezilla--particularly, as they relate to new information that came out regarding "Developer Z," who Logan Paul outed as Zach Kelling.

CONTEXT:
After Coffeezilla exposed Sam Bankman-Fried and the collapse of FTX, as well as Andrew Tate's "Hustler Club," he turned his sights on Logan Paul's crypto NFT project, Cryptozoo. See his videos below:

In response, Logan Paul posted a short video to his main channel, Logan Paul, in which he threatened Coffeezilla with a defamation lawsuit. He followed this with an episode of his podcast, Impaulsive, where he repeated the same threat. He has since taken down both videos and reached out to Coffeezilla to inform him that he's no longer pursuing litigation--but he still may have opened himself up to liability along the way, nonetheless.

TIME STAMPS:
0:00 Introduction
0:54 Background & New Information
2:06 Zach Kelling's Facebook Post
4:07 Logan's Three Main Claims
5:22 Claim No. 1: Stole / Held the Code Hostage
10:33 Claim No. 2: Three vs. Thirty Developers
13:21 Claim No. 3: Felony Conviction for Armed Robbery of a Liquor Store
13:54 Expungement (in Kansas)
20:39 Is It Defamation?
23:01 What Do YOU Think?

To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT, Locals, or Patreon:
--------------------
🚨 Our podcast:
--------------------
--------------------
Follow me here!
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
#LoganPaul #Coffeezilla #CryptoZoo

[LegalBytesMedia]

In this video we follow up on some of the legal mistakes that arose in the controversy between Logan Paul and Coffeezilla--particularly, as they relate to new information that came out regarding "Developer Z, " who Logan Paul outed as Zach Kelling. What do you think? Does Logan have some things to worry about here?

[DSzaks]

Imagine going to Wal-Mart. Filling up your cart, going to the checkout and refusing to pay, then claiming Wal-Mart was holding your cart "hostage" because they wouldn't let you leave the store with it.

[ballagames]

here's a theory: since Zach stated himself that he openly discusses his history with investors and colleagues, I could find it well within the realm of possibility that he honestly discussed it with Logan upon hiring and then Logan turned around and used it against him with additional falsities added.

[jacob_s]

I wish Logan luck trying to argue that Zack was "holding the code hostage" to a jury. I have a hard time believing that without any sort of contract saying Zack had to act otherwise, withholding any completed work because the other guy didn't pay you is going to make Zack sound like a hero to any average person

[kft]

The code was held hostage as much as Best Buy is holding a PS5 hostage from me unless I give them $500. Logan never paid for the code, so he has no ownership.

[paradisianway]

I think the photoshopping of Zak in an orange jumpsuit should also be weighed in to the defamation claim. Correct?

[PacMonster]

Personally, I think the most telling reason that Logan removed the 7 minute "response" video to Coffeezilla but not his podcast where he re-iterates many of the same falsehoods is directly related to Logan's defaming Zach Kelling.

Logan's 3rd response was done via Twitter, on his phone, over the course of 2 minutes, thus reaching a tiny sliver of the audience that would have seen his podcast or watch his main channel on youtube. If apologizing to Coffeezilla or making the victims of his crypto-scam, whole, were the primary purpose of the video then he should have put just as much effort into that video as he did his 7 minute temper tantrum.

The main difference between the response video and the podcast is the specificity Logan went to in trying to discredit Zach Kelling as a reputable source of information. He used a photoshopped picture of a jump-suit on Zach to infer Zach is some active criminal. He showed that expunged conviction record as well as the clearly cherry-picked pictures to support that "3 developer only" narrative.

None of those actionable defamation claims existed in the podcast.

Logan's legal team must have noticed Logan opened himself to very clear defamation and *that's* the reason that 7 minute video was removed so quickly. Logan said he spent "days" working on that response. Him later saying it was "rash" is directly contradictory to what he said in the podcast. One doesn't "rashly" work on a script, get professionally made graphics and sound editing done. And I don't believe for 1 second that negative internet reactions and comments would have swayed him to do anything. Dude went through all of that before with the Dink Doink scam and many of his other controversial moments yet those media sources stayed up and with rarely an apology.

[mellchiril]

It doesn't much surprise me that Logan Paul would be the type of person to do this sort of thing. What does surprise me is that people willingly follow him.

[panikk]

It's so bizarre that anyone could look at a room of 3 developers working on a project and think that's literally everyone who has worked on the project. Especially post-covid.

[ZulqarnainAidil]

Whether Logan is the mastermind behind the scam or not, the way he digs himself into a hole makes him an incredible asset to have

[ipot]

I don't know how this isn't textbook defamation. Logan dug up expunged criminal records in order to paint Zach Kelling as an unsavory and untrustworthy individual. Only question is if there was demonstrably malice involved, which there probably was.

[MrHrannsi]

If I ever end up in a legal battle in the USA, I really hope that I got this lady in my corner.

[benjaminmatheny]

I think there would be an argument that "Stole the code" was defamatory. It is a factual claim of theft. When there was no written contract AND he hadn't paid for any of it. There would be no basis for Logan to be able to claim ownership of the code at that point and therefor it couldn't have been "stolen" from him. Heck, even if it was written down, if he hadn't followed through on his end of the contract then he still wouldn't be able to claim ownership.

[spoonkiller.]

Meanwhile Coffeezilla has kept quiet, letting Paul just bury himself deeper and deeper.... that $10M studio might just get a hefty boost from Paul...

[chelscara]

7:42 a teacher in college once taught us how to write a group project contract. I still use it when I feel it’s necessary. One time I had to enforce it and had someone removed from the team for contributing nothing over a month of research and drafting. Contracts are important 👏👏

[PeterDeMarco]

There's no speculation about how many engineers worked on the project. The GitHub Repo will have exact dates, times, and volumes of contributions for each contributor as a natural part of the commit history. Z has no reason to lie here and is not speculating on this point. It's a matter of extremely well documented fact, given one has access to the repo.

[jsrodman]

Re: the code "hostage", I"m not sure how you can worry about 'breach of contract' in the lack of a contract. No one was paid, so no work was delivered. How can this reflect badly on the programmers? Code you write isn't a work for hire if no one ever pays you, so it's your property if you wrote it.

[turkicnomad]

I still have yet to understand why everyone is trying to rehabilitate Logan’s image in their mind. All the lip service to save face can’t hide all of the shady shit he still does and the questionable behavior on his podcast. And also what an absolutely appropriate name.

[RyanBlackhawke]

Remote work is a thing. My wife's job is 100% remote. There are a few that prefer going to the office. But folks at the office are a very small subset of the entire workforce there.

[jagjax]

Dude tried to show the public he's a victim of defamation by making a defamation video filled with threats, mockery and no apology. Basically he was like, 'Yeah, let's get the public side with us by showing them we're a bully, a stupid bully.'