Quote:
Originally Posted by George Rice
Postle has the burden of proving that the defendants made the statements he's accusing them of making. He also has to show he suffered damages (was fired, has a bad reputation in the poker world and can't get a game, etc.). He doesn't have to prove the statements are false. If he proves the defendants made the statements and that he suffered damages, then the burden of proof switches to the defendants to demonstrate the statements are true. The standard of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, nor clear and convincing. That's the lowest standard of proof used in the courts. And in civil cases, the jury verdict doesn't have to be unanimous. California law might vary somewhat.
I don't think Postle can sue those Nevada corporations and individuals living in other states in the California court. The case probably has to be moved to the Federal Court. That's the first attack the defendants will probably make. Also, they can counter-sue for legal expenses. Additionally, any of the defendants who lost money to him in the poker games can counter-sue for the money they lost. Postle probably doesn't want to go to court if he cheated because he could lose. This suit is probably intended as a shot across the bow of those accused, with Postle hoping to back everybody off and get some money in settlements, maybe 5K - 10K from some defendants who will spend more than that in legal expenses if the case moves forward.
The defendants own attorney made a statement of no wrong doing found and no evidence to support their claims. Its already been stated and accepted in court by the named defendants attorney that they couldnt prove it.
Before during and after this settlement the court of public opinion slandered and defamed Postle as a cheater etc etc. even after judgement the named defendants still slandered his name. This is as clear cut as it gets after their own attorney stated no proof was found. Theyre drawing dead at winning this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a dewd
Postle still is not famous or much of a public figure, but he was known in the pokerverse and the negative talk came from the poker community. Known by peers and judged by peers....maybe one of the lawyers in this thread can comment on that.
The real mystery to me is how he is walking without crutches and doesn't need a straw for feedings.
Lol no one in the poker world ever does anything because theyre all soft and just internet warriors. Seriously this thought process in the poker world is hilarious. The same people that are suing over losing at the tables are going to start jumping people in the street? cmon gtfo. all you little boys with your egos are way out of line saying stuff like this online mostly cause you all know youre soft and wouldnt do anythinng.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
Here is the first definition I located providing the elements of the claim and a cite to the Restatement of Torts. Do you have anything showing the Plaintiff does not have to prove the statements were false?
Elements
In order to establish a prima facie case of defamation, a plaintiff must prove:
a false and defamatory statement by defendant concerning the plaintiff;
an unprivileged publication to a third person;
fault, amounting to at least negligence; and
actual or presumed damages.
Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 483, 851 P.2d 459 (1993)(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 558 (1977)).
If the defamation tends to injure the plaintiff in his or her business or profession, it is deemed defamation per se, and damages will be presumed.
Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 483-84, 851 P.2d 459 (1993).
Example Cases
Proof
Whether a statement could be construed as defamatory is a question of law
Whether a statement is capable of a defamatory construction is a question of law. Branda v. Sanford, 97 Nev. 643, 646, 637 P.2d 1223, 1225 (1981). A jury question arises when the statement is susceptible of different meanings, one of which is defamatory. Id.
Chowdhry v. NLVH, Inc., 109 Nev. 478, 483-84, 851 P.2d 459 (1993).
Whether a statement is true/false is a question of fact
Accordingly, a jury must be allowed to determine whether the statement has any “basis in truth,” Wellman, 108 Nev. at 88, 825 P.2d at 211, since the truth or falsity of an allegedly defamatory statement is an issue of fact properly left to the jury for resolution. Nevada Ind. Broadcasting v. Allen, 99 Nev. 404, 413, 664 P.2d 337, 343 (1983).
Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 453, 851 P.2d 438, 442 (1993)
The defendants own lawyer in a prior criminal case exonerated Postle by stating they had no proof or evidence of wrong doing. There is no way postle loses this case because of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_thunders
I am a lawyer. My practice is mainly commercial civil litigation in Texas (not California). She needs to raise the limit of her gofundme goal. Alternatively, we need to donate more even if it exceeds her goal. $20k isn't going to get it. Donate if you believe in her cause, even if it's just $10. I doubt she's ever been through litigation like this. If she had, she would know she's going to need more. When litigation truly gets rolling, the fee statements will take your breath away.
Moreover, I'm imagining she's not up against Postle as much as she is his lawyers who have agreed to take this case on a contingent fee basis. If he's as broke as all current information suggests he is, that's what his deal is with his lawyers.
She's just caught in the middle between Postle and the deeper pockets like ESPN who may or may not be likely to settle to avoid the nuisance.
Give it up if you think this guy is the person you think he is. The rest of the defendants can probably handle the fees. I don't think she can.
Edit: I do not know Veronica, I have never talked to her, or any other defendant. I do not have a monetary interest in this case. Just observations/guesses from a person who has been following this story since it first came to light.
Im a lawyer also. Veronica and Joey Ingram did about everything wrong that they could do wrong here, given they had no physical proof. They cant prove the claims they can only make assumptions..
Id like to paraphrase a judgement on a california case based on an exploit in a video poker machine:
A group of players found an exploit (edge) on certain video poker machines. Kept it to themselves, over the course of a few months make over 500k from said machines spread across california. The casinos and manufacturers sued the players criminally and in civil court. Both times case was thrown out when their lawyers defense was... "your honor all my clients did was press a button in a certain sequence in which they were legally entitled to press"
Case dismissed and they were able to recover all funds that were seized and sue operators for defamation after the fact.
Postles going to walk away from this with potentially 7 figures because poker players dont know **** about the real world or how it actually works.
Also no one has said it yet but Joey Ingram is going to get destroyed through this. He was broadcasting his videos to 10s of thousands of people EVERY DAY for weeks, calling postle a cheater, a scammer, etc etc... all the while holding up bottle of adderall talking about his drug induced sessions of grinding this to uncover the truth!!! Hes going to get destroyed in court, its why hes gone silent on social media.
GG poker world.
