Do they? I will call your bluff, as you are a troll so full of crap.

Please could you direct us to any other real life examples where people have reported others, only to then be disclosed as a co-conspirator.

Lots of examples please, it should be easy for you to find dozens of examples, as you say people do stupid stuff like that all the time.

Jussie Smollett, Tonya Harding and Manti Teo off the top of my head.

I thought manti teo was duped and didn’t know?

These conspiracy theories are lol.

noise.

YOU CHEATED!! JUSTIN AND MIKE ARE CHEATERS!

He 100% cheated. There is a mountain of evidence. Yes, EVIDENCE. You don't need a text between Mike and Justin saying "hey we're still cheating this game, right?" or card data on a phone to have conclusive evidence. And you definitely don't need Postle's win/loss numbers.

If you actually looked at the hand examples, his crotch staring, the videos of before and after he started cheating, seen the card graphic changes, seen the video where he tries to get the reader to read the omaha hand while looking back at his crotch, heard his rambling explanations about reads on the Stones stream(When he never looks at his opponents for reads, always his crotch), heard his brother saying "if there's an angle, my brother will take it", heard his nonsensical interview on the mouth podcast, and still came to the conclusion that he didn't cheat, then you lack serious critical faculties. Idk why this thread is even open still. Should be locked unless a new case comes up. There's nothing more to discuss.

What I would like to know is who could testify to the fact that Postle structured his cash outs to avoid paying taxes. The IRS path seems to be the only one to some justice. I don't think the Galfond strategy will accomplish anything.

He obviously cheated 100% but without concrete proof of how (hat,crotch, whatever) or someone spilled the beans by whoever else was in on it he was never going to be prosecuted in a court because non poker players won’t understand without a reasonable doubt he cheated

Probably should of just ripped his hat off or snatched his phone on a stream but hindsight is 20/20 and who woulda known stones was in on it.....

Nonsense. Circumstantial evidence is very important in court cases. Experts break down evidence and answer questions in a court room to help the jury understand the matter at hand. You can't expect a jury of experts.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...work/evidence/

Because law & order / CSI (and shows of that type) have convinced everybody that:

1) There is always a smoking gun, somewhere, it's just about figuring out where to look and how to find it.
2) Anything that's not the smoking gun is "circumstantial evidence".
3) Circumstantial evidence is almost always entirely worthless.
4) Absent a smoking gun, courts/juries should always find the defendant not guilty.

And then many people out there take that fourth concept and somehow stretch it to "absent a smoking gun, any form of justice (civil liability, being fired, heck even just public shaming) is wrong if there's no smoking gun / if it's based on just "circumstantial evidence").

It's a legitimate problem in our criminal justice system. However, there's approximately five bajillion problems in our criminal justice system that unfairly harm defendants so it's kind of hard to really get that worked up about it. But when the "CSI effect" bleeds into just general ideas about guilt or justice, it's really, really annoying.

If the state wanted to pursue a criminal case they could easily win. They have all the tools needed to gather evidence, flip co-conspirators, pile on charges to force a plea, etc. They won't because it's too costly to actually go to trial. No one cares about poker players cheating other players, so no political benefit either. If he cheated the casino, sure. If he cheated the government, definitely. But in this case it's just...

Not sure why this dude is banned now, but the above comment from him seems to indicate he's definitely a troll. Across a few posts, he used the following phrases:

- babe in the woods
- disjointed schizophrenic analogy
- the plot thickens

Using idioms/language like this and claiming not to be a competent speaker of English is a bit disingenuous...

Whether or not the IRS (and possibly the state of California) goes after Mike Postle for structuring and tax evasion is dependent on a number of factors. The prime factor would be the amount of money involved. Did Postle "win" (and not report) a trifling amount of money - say less than an aggregate of $10,000.00 - or did Postle win/steal several million? (If the amount is closer to the latter rather than the former, the Government is more likely to go after MP for tax evasion.)

The second factor would be the strength of the Government's case. Stated another way, how great are the odds the IRS can prove MK evaded paying his taxes? To nail Postle for structuring and tax evasion, the Government will need a cooperating witness. Since the IRS offers a reward to individuals who report tax evaders, it may not be that difficult to find a cooperating witness. There may be a significant number of those "minimum wage" Stones chip runners Postle [allegedly] enlisted to cash him out for amounts under $10K. Their cooperation - combined with all the video evidence - may be enough to net MK jail time and/or a huge penalty/fine.

Al Capone, the notorious mobster, didn't get nailed for all the folks he killed. He was sent up the river for tax evasion.

Have you ever dealt with the IRS? They need very little evidence of wrong doing to seize bank accounts and force you to get your money back. Tax lawyers aren't cheap by any means. My former boss got in hot water with the IRS. In the end, he did nothing wrong, they seized 100k and it took him 40k in legal fees to get it back with nearly no due process. If they want Postle, they can get him back.

JJ you are so ... and ignorant that when you try to be clever and show that I am wrong, you just expose your own moronic thinking.

For example, Jussie Smollet was not a co-conspirator, he was a sole person, making false allegations.

Manti Te, another example you picked off the top of your thick head was not a co-conspirator, he knew Tuiasosopo, but the events weren't anything they had jointly planned.

If you have a problem with what I say PM me, and dont embarrass yourself by posting your ill-considered trolling posts in public.

Tonya Harding doesn't even fit the scenario I had mentioned either, "Please could you direct us to any other real life examples where people have reported others, only to then be disclosed as a co-conspirator.

Lots of examples please, it should be easy for you to find dozens of examples, as you say people do stupid stuff like that all the time." She hadn't gone public to complain about others, only to be found to have been plotting with them all along."

So what I said stands, Veronica is cool, and not a stupid conspiritoress who forgot in the heat of the moment that those she was informing on would immediately reveal she was one of them!

Maybe you should just stick to arguing with yourself, as you dont seem up to understanding what is said by others. So think before you post is my advice

Yeah I didn't buy his babe in the woods routine either.

I don't want to post any links as I'm not sure what I can post in this forum but I have watched a couple of Youtube videos that are interesting.

Bart Hanson just did an interview with Jaman Burton, who once again shows what a class act he is in the poker world.
(spoiler: he didn't sign the agreement either)

Also Matt Berkey just did a podcast for an hour which is on Youtube.
I haven't always been a fan of his technical stuff but this talking about various topics including the cheating scandal is by far his best stuff.
He pretty much nails everything. He is pretty fired up in this video and doesn't hold back.

Another reminder to keep it friendly in here folks. Thank you.

Just because he is a troll does NOT make it ok to bully him online.

Shocked there is any doubt at this point go back and watch the videos posted in the first few 100 posts. That was the last time i checked in when it was proven beyond any doubt. Has there been any interesting discussion in the last 10000 posts?

I don't feel like digging for it all over again, but he also spouted something like "every now and then, I get wood on the ball" line when someone agreed with him. Not that you have to be an American to make a baseball reference, but this guy claimed to be from Cleveland.

I'd also like Veronica to be able to clear her name (at least, to some degree) when it comes to the weird claims that she invited Postle to the Stones Live games, and that she invited people to a game despite there being a "known" cheater. It seems that Postle would have played in these games with or without her input, as he was one of the casino regulars AND he had a hand in the existence of a live streamed game. So that accusation is bunk.

Furthermore, there was a long road between being suspicious that something was fishy to being convinced of actual cheating. As soon as she got to that final stage, she ducked out. So his claim #2 is unfounded. Sure, he's now banned, but those awful leaps in logic still linger in the thread.

And indeed, that's ultimately why this stalled as a civil case: he cheated other players, and out of policy, the state's courts will not settle gambling disputes between players.

A question to our friends with actual expertise on criminal justice: what would the exact charges against Postle be in a criminal case? Is it Penal Code 332(b)? Sorry if this has been asked before.

Also, suppose Postle was on trial for the actual cheating. And suppose at the same time, Stones Gambling Hall or JFK or someone else was facing trial for assisting Postle via a device (could this fall under Penal Code 334?). Could leaning on one party help induce that party to rat out the other? (Okay, I watched too much Making A Murderer on Netflix, just trying to work out a potential criminal action in my head.)

There was just one poster thinking Veronica was somehow involved with the conspirators, and no one else agrees she was.

Although it turned out unfounded it is important to briefly consider it as an option, as let's be honest, the suggestion could have been accurate, and there is a tiny theoretical possibility she could have been a bitter co-conspirator, that the conspirators were unable to admit to being one of them, because to do so would admit to their own guilt.

But then that co-conspirator suggestion is quickly dismissed by her behaviour since, as she is still so resolutely seeking action against them, whereas if she was a co-conspirator she would now be quietly letting this case disappear from consideration so her own participatory role was never discovered.

Yes, I agree that no one else agreed with Ataman. But I just wanted to refute him in a way different from "stop, you're being a troll" or by calling him an idiot, or whatever method NVGers seem to employ.

His weird-ass conspiracy theory was based on a very faulty premise – specifically, the notion that Veronica continued to invite Postle to the game after she was convinced he was cheating somehow. This premise can be debunked in two ways. The first is to show the timeline, which I did several posts ago. The second is the show that Veronica was not the one responsible for inviting Postle to the Stones Live games. That falls more in the "think but don't know," which is why I asked the question.

Indeed. In fact, this would be a helluva lot easier if she had been a co-conspirator: a) she would have more rock-solid information against Postle, plus b) Postle would have likely outed her as an accomplice, which in turn would become tacit admission that cheating took place.

umm, yes it does. lol

The mods could do worse than closing this thread or deleting the last 1000ish posts. Its turned from one of the best threads in the history of 2+2, to consistent drivel.