thats the blue on his screen

Great post

Yeah.

I decided to compare the colors of the graphics software to the shot of Mike's phone.



Here's his phone



Here's the software.

Notice the hue. Saturation and brightness are off, as expected given screen differences, angle of the phone, and lighting. But the hue (H: = the actual color) is almost identical.

Then again I thought maybe all bright blue is that close, so I googled bright blue and picked some shades that looked similar. I got 230 and 247. Interesting that they're that close. Maybe some graphic experts can weigh in on the likelihood of that.

Also notice all the empty space. It looks exactly like what the software looks like in the demo wiiziwiig posted - mostly empty space (where the live camera shots would be) with cards along the edges.

Now that we know that they likely just piped the data out to another party and what the unused streaming feature looks like when you're not actually using GFK to put the actual stream together - that blue screen makes a ton of sense.

Mike Postle killed JFK?!?!??!??!?!??!?!??!

Wow this goes deep

I'm sold.

Yes. It's an anti-money laundering process/rule to track large cash transactions.

That's not right.

The purpose of a Doe defendant in California is to relate back the statute of limitations. I.e., if you and some person I can't identify harm me, I know I am harmed, and I want to discover the identity of your co-conspirator or confirm some facts before I name him in a suit, I might file suit against wiiziwiig and John Doe.

In that situation, my action against John Doe is deemed filed on October 8, 2019, even if by the time I get around to actually naming him, it is after the statute of limitations has run against him.

JFK is named, so there's no reason for him to also be a John Doe. They have sued him with the limitations period.

There's some evidence that he wasn't involved. But regardless, he was "in charge" and he was an ******* to people who brought up the complaint. So from that perspective, he's at least partially responsible.

Can I just be absolutely clear here, is this saying there was a John Doe AND Jane Doe?

If so, it's very clear who they are alleging to be the accomplices (clue it's not Justin OR Taylor OR Lance)

And Berkey has now shown exactly how it was done (although they probably switched up methods later too).

How does one post of erroneous tax information create such a slew of hillbilly tax accountants putting in their 2 cents, no wait 2 cents is too high, worthless opinions. Has anybody here actually ever cashed out chips from a poker game? Anybody got issued a W-2g? Gawd Almighty, next we are going to hear about Wanda's boyfriends cousin and that one time he had to fill out a form at the horse track or something.

And stop with the stupid how do I wipe a computer hard drive stuff. What is the damn point about that conversation? Here - Maybe Stones set their entire computer room on fire and burnt it all to the ground. Discuss.

The first group of lawyers have filed the first of what I am sure are many to come lawsuits. Get out the popcorn and enjoy.

Thank you for telling me that CSI is not real. Do you think it's completely irrelevant that Berkey shows the simplest way to stream hole card info to an outside source and the screen looks exactly like a pic of Postle's phone posted in here several days ago captured during a cheating session? Obviously it is not definitive proof of anything but it seems pretty interesting to me and I don't know why you need to be shitty about it.

Nice work bro!

100% agree--I'm speaking specifically about direct involvement in Postle's cheating.

John and Jane Doe, or sometimes John Doe and Jane Roe, are just gender-inclusive terms. The legal concept is a "Doe defendant" or "fictitiously named defendant". If you just plead your claim against John Doe, it can still turn out to be a woman.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by "they have sued him with the limitations period". So you're saying John Doe 1 can't be Justin? I guess it must be Taylor then?

It was a poorly worded joke, it wasn't an attack on you. I think what you posted was very relevant.

Ok thanks, certainly bow to your greater knowledge. Just there's multiple mentions of just John Doe elsewhere, and this passage mentioning both seems to read differently?

I'm saying it is likely to be someone other than JFK, because the only reason to include Doe defendants is so that if you later discover co-conspirators, you can include them in the lawsuit without your claims against them being barred by the statute of limitations.

When you name a defendant, you've already satisfied the statute. Plaintiffs suit against JFK is filed as of October 8 (assuming they filed today). So there's no reason to name the same person as a Doe defendant.

They specifically allege that when Mike didn't cheat it was because the absence of John Doe in the Sacramento area. This rules out Taylor and Justin.

Either might still be guilty, we have no idea what this lawyer is basing his accusations on and if he's correct.

ok that makes sense. thanks for the correction.

I thought Justin and Taylor went to the WSOP together, and that's when Mike stopped cheating and didn't play on stream as much.

I definitely agree that Taylor is implicated in a lot of ways. On the first time that Postle enters god mode, there's a hand where someone's cards aren't read. Right afterwards, Postle is texting someone, and then Taylor comes by and messes with a tablet behind the table. And changes the dealers headphones. Not sure what was happening but seems odd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAw9HiSpG9w&t=13977

But this kinda makes me confused:

Why would Taylor say that the opponent had JJ? Wouldn't it make sense to say that the guy bluffed Postle off the best hand? Wouldn't that make the case that he wasn't cheating?

That gfx software actually makes it easier to see/remember holecards, without needing any live video of the players at all. And that cheating method's latency issues tie in with the extended crotch-staring.
It would be very cool if Berkey could re-do that compelling video, but show the gfx software being streamed on to an i-phone's media player.


Berkey's vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qar...ature=youtu.be

EDIT: A bright blue screen with a few black/white text bits would also be easy for one of the production crew (or Justin) to recognise at a moment's glance, which is why Postle kept it so well hidden.

I hope all these lawyers got conflict waivers from their clients. Victoria’s interests are different than people who only played on the channel. She had a prior working relationship with Stones and certainly they will use that against her in an attempt to defeat her claims.

+1

God, enough with the harddrive wiping discussion already

Exciting to read the civil suit. I do feel a bit sad that this likely means Stones is going to stoneswall everything communication wise due to the ongoing litigation though, I was hoping they would tweet that they found something out or throw someone under the bus. Very unlikely now. But, hey, the lawsuit is more important so is all cool