Not a lawyer so possibly worthless opinion here, but as I understand it defamation in the United States is quite difficult to prove. Another angle to this is how you would go about "proving" in court that the claim that he cheated is false. You could probably make a good legal argument that it wasn't proven true, but that isn't necessarily the same as proven false.

At best, it's a copy of papers intended to be filed with the court. I think if that was a copy of papers filed with the court it would have a date stamped on it. And if it was a copy of papers received by a defendant, it would have a case number on it.

I think it's one of three things. A copy of papers about to be filed with the court; Something Postle created to scare the defendants into backing down on the attacks against him; Or a complete hoax created by someone other than Postle. Take your pick, for now. If a defendant is actually served these papers, we'll hear about it soon enough.

Uhhh the same reason every other scammer small and large ever is walking around doing what they want?

No. If they were non-settling or settling Plaintiffs in the federal case, they would have had to appeal the dismissal of their claims against Postle and are probably time barred at this point. If they were not a party in the other litigation, they could raise such a claim but under the Kelly case, such counterclaims are likely to be dismissed (for the same reasoning as in the federal case).

Jen Shahade will now ask her brother for a few extra investigators. "We're dealing with the same issue on two fronts. Say hi to mom."

lol @ US justice system if he gets any kind of reward for this. Guy is a blatant cheat, and clearly a scum human. It's not often that I hope for some kind of vigilante justice...

We have actual lawyers in this thread... to put an end to the squabbling on the subject, what is the legal requirement in a defamation case: does the plaintiff have to prove a statement was false? Or does the defense have to prove it's true?

Based on the typical presumption of innocence, I would guess it's the former. The defendants do not need to prove they are innocent (although it sure as hell helps); rather, the plaintiff must prove the defendant is guilty. But again, I'm not a lawyer, this is the take of an amateur.

I'll further do some quick non-lawyer Googling of the subject, but ultimately, that's all I've done here – just copy and pasted what I see. And no, I did not "cherry-pick" my results, they're all pretty much in the same vein.

[Source: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/persona...n/defamation/]

[Source: https://www.californiaemploymentlawr...ation-claims/]


[Source: https://www.bc-llp.com/what-do-i-hav...mation-claim/]

You're right, Postle will have to prove the statements false. My understanding was more of a practical one. But what does that entail? Testimony is proof, and if Postle testifies that he didn't cheat, offers explanations for some of his actions and comes off credible, that may be enough. Whether a jury considers that sufficient proof will depend on how the defense responds. The burden of proof in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence." What that amounts to is that Postle loses if the jury isn't sure. If they think it more likely than not that Postle did not cheat, then he successfully proved that point. So if he comes off well, the defense will have the burden of reducing his credibility or proving him a liar. And in this case, that can get very complicated because there are no witnesses who can claim they saw him cheat, or claim he had a reputation as a cheater.

The allegations against him derive from an analysis of his results and of interpretations of videos of him playing. But none of the videos show him outright cheating--they show him making plays that the defendants consider strange. Making bets and raises or calling bets in not cheating--it's part of the game. Looking at one's phone while playing poker is not cheating. Showing one's hand at showdown and winning or losing the pot is not cheating. Nobody in the videos called him out for cheating. None of the "expert analysis" of the announcers raises the issue, in fact, they laud him as a great player. The defendants are on record claiming the videos prove he cheated. In fact, Postle doesn't have to prove he isn't a cheater, all he has to prove is he wasn't a cheater in those videos. He can play these same videos as proof he wasn't cheating. The jury will see them and not see cheating. Postle would probably have a harder time proving he wasn't a cheater if there were no videos. The defendants unwittingly made it easier for him to win by basing their claims on narrow events--what was seen in the videos. And the videos will actually help prove his case--unless the defendants can convince the jury otherwise. And that is a very tall order. Defense: "Don't believe what you saw, accept our expert analysis of this complicated poker hand as prove he's a cheat." or, D:"His win rate was highly unlikely." Plaintiff: "How unlikely?" D:"One in ten million." P:"What are the odd of winning the lottery?" D:"One in ten million." P:"Are lottery winners cheats?" And I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the plaintiff will get at least one defendant to admit that it's possible that Postle did not cheat.

Also, the lawsuit claims libel and slander per se. That reduces his burden to show damages, as being called a cheat is damaging to one's reputation on its face. He can win this case without showing monetary damages. But if he makes his living off of poker and can't get a game now, he can possibly also collect for loss of earnings.

For what it's worth, you cited a lot of Nevada cases. There are probably some differences in California.

I was speaking generically. Were any of the defendants in the supposed Postle filed suit, other than Veronica, also players in the games and also party in the first case? Were any defendants also players in the games but not party in the first case?

Also, statute of limitations may play an part in games that are more than one year ago. I don't know what applies here. The slander/libel suit is based on an ongoing situation and not effected by that.

The videos are damning evidence. Like I said before: show a video the phone on the table, and one with it in his lap, side by side, and compare behavior. Watch when he's put to a tough decision. Phone on the table, he goes in the tank, pained look on his face. Phone in the lap, he looks at his crotch, all smiles. Easy decision and always right. Over and over again. Why? Because, in the latter cases, he knows what cards his opponent has. Opening statement to the jury will have words to the effect: "you will see two different Mike Postles". No complicated hand analysis or statistics needed. You can see him go from one to the other in the same session. Did he learn god-mode soul reading in between hands?

I agree with what you say. The one refinement is to look at his behaviour and results in streamed play after he suddenly got access to the hole cards - Joey Ingram has identified the session where things suddenly changed - and there is such a massive difference where for the first time he suddenly displays all those things you mention, ie he is very average pre that session, and amazingly successful after it. His demeanour is also different in the two different set of games.

Wilbur, you have the general gist of how it works but you are applying criminal concepts to a civil case. Its liability, not guilt. It’s a question of who has the burden of proof and can they prove something to the extent of the applicable legal standard. A plaintiff must prove his allegations, a defendant must prove affirmative defenses.

I would like to see the actual complaint instead of simply the first page. Defamation cases are tough to win because of the first amendment rights, opinions are not defamation, lawsuits and litigants have qualified immunity, proving damages is tenuous and truth is a defense. There are a ton of pitfalls for the Plaintiff. Without knowing specifics of the allegations, it’s simply guessing at this point.

For example, DNegs posted a video saying “he cheated” a few months after the lawsuit. I would argue Daniel was commenting on a public figure when he made this video and actual malice would need to be proven. “He cheated” could certainly be deemed mere opinion. Damages may not flow from this statement given what played out the few months before. Contrast the claim against Daniel to Ingram, who was calling him a cheater before the lawsuit and before Postle was a public figure.

Also. I don’t recall the ESPN story being anything but a reporting piece on the litigation and allegations of the Plaintiffs. It was no different than the Wired article in which he was semi-cooperative.

The only slight case Postle may have is that the defendants exaggerated how much he won in order to make him look like he cheated.

JFK claims that he won significantly less. Not sure how much but there does seem to be merit in a few places where Postle added to his chip stack but the graphics credited him with winning.

This is reminding of Lance Armstrong who sued anyone and everyone who claimed he cheated. He successfully shut a lot of people up.

Lance had the money to make litigation long and messy. I doubt the poker god has much to his name.

I feel the worst for all the other poker players that they grifted during the stream. Some of these guys and gals (all seem like good folks for the most part) were going to bat for him saying stuff like "he's such a nice guy! you don't know him! He's buying drinks and is very charismatic and likable, always laughing and telling jokes!".

It's easy to act that way when you are cheating the entire table for all their money - in fact, it's even diabolical (to borrow a word from the man himself) because then you are gas-lighting the people you are stealing from into thinking you are this great person so they'll come to your defense later! Buying people drinks with the money you just stole from them isn't actually that gregarious; if anything it's performative.

What's really the craziest thing to me is that if he wasn't so ****ing greedy he could've gotten away with it. All he needed to do was every now and then bluff into the nuts on the river, or make a bad call and pay someone off big. He still could've been winning huge and everyone would've still thought he was the best player.

Perfect example of when he should've done this was when he rivered 8's full of 9's on a 9-9-4-10-8 board with 88 and was against 1010, he ended up check-calling the river for $200 instead of check-raising all in (or bet-calling all-in) and losing $800.

Every single player in the world either leads the river and calls the all-in raise or they check-raise all in on the river with his hand as played (unless they've never played before or are playing their grandmother - surely not a "diabolical poker genius" would look to lose the EV by not shipping in that spot).

You'd think he'd realize that at some point it's obscenely obvious what he's doing if someone was actually paying close attention, but he's gotta keep that extra little bit of money no matter what. Even after they start pushing the "Postle is a God" narrative you'd think that would be a little ego-check that you should dial it back since you are kind of exposing the truth through your play, but maybe his hubris is really that grand. I've heard he's taken anything from like $250K to $350K from that game - if he had just donked $50K of it back in random spots he could've still been "Postle the God" crushing the streams at Stones I honestly believe.

Is he really this big of a troll to sue for libel?

I understand why winning a case against him would be very difficult. You have to prove statistical variance for 12 people that have never played poker.

I hope those being sued for libel hold their ground and don't settle for fear of legal fees.

no he was too busy spending all of his money to find the real killer(s)

If I was one of the players that was robbed by this massive **** and now had to deal with a defamation lawsuit, whilst knowing where he hangs around, I'd make a strong gesture that symbolizes what I think about him. Let's leave it at that.

By the way, I saw on the BluffTheSpot YT channel that Postle is launching a documentary sometime soon which supposedly proves his innocence. Anyone know any specifics about this?

Actual legit filmmaker is doing a documentary that's going to be a series of stories that showcase the power of social media (both the good and the bad) in influencing people and changing people's perceptions of individuals. For whatever reason, the guy's including Postle as one of his stories, and while the filmmaker has claimed "both sides of the story will be told", people are skeptical and are afraid it will be framed as "Look how quickly everyone jumped on the 'Postle is cheating' bandwagon and his poker career was destroyed even though it is unclear he actually cheated".

Is there any indication he is going to sue for defamation? The lawsuit was dismissed for legal reasons. No evidence was presented. Truth is a defense for defamation. If he sued, the defendants could provide tons of evidence for truth.

As for his poker career ruined, he can play anywhere he wants if he can beat the games. Apparently, JFK is still employed by Stones, but he might have trouble getting another job for some reason.

I was a pretty loyal watcher of the stream. I remember asking in the chat one day "Does Mike ever lose?"

Right before the cheating began he happened to be on a legit heater, so I just assumed it was still going. I never really put 2 and 2 together because I just assumed with so many cameras in the casino someone would have caught something (which is why I believe complicit behavior is likely within someone in management, cough cough). But it was just insane to me how he never seemed to lose. Little did I know

I think Postle is actually a favorite to get some settlement from some of the parties after what Mac Verstandig settled for.

To think that the general lay public is going to know any poker or gambling related statistical probability argument is just not going to happen.

Then they see that a similar case was settled in basically Postle/Kings favor and that there was no wrongdoing from Stones (where the person running the stream setting up live feed for Postle is by far most likely scenario), this is hugely in Postle's favor.

I'd suggest not donating to the Veronica fund as this will only lead to more heartache for the poker world.

A lot of these parties have money and / or a grudge. I assume they will be glad to provide evidence for "truth" rather than give Postle a dime.

PM me if you want to bet that Postle gets less than $1.

Does the ridiculous amount that he's suing for hurt his case at all? I would love to see the breakdown of how he came up with that number lol. My guess is that his analysis went something like, "How much money do I wish I had? $320 mil sounds good."