No.

Who's Paying?

The assumption (at this point) is that the "prestigious" Beverly Hills law firm that has filed suit on Mike Postle's behalf is representing him on a contingency fee basis, but do we know this to be an actual fact? (If MP is having to pay for his lawyers out of his own pocket, this case probably won't drag on very long.)

Lawyers don't work for peanuts. If this litigation drags on indefinitely, the bills will start piling up fast. With Bill Perkins and much of the poker community in Veronica's corner, she can probably hang in there for the duration. Daniel Negreanu and ESPN have deep pockets so they can afford a multi-year multi-million-$$$ legal battle. As for the other not-so-deep-pocketed defendants, their financial ability to pay for (and withstand) a protracted and costly legal battle is an open question.

Filing a lawsuit like this is a declaration of war. The bullets being fired in this war are dollar bills. The question is which side runs out of money (and the will to continue fighting) first? (This was the major theme in Jonathan Harr's "A Civil Action" book - which side runs out of money first and comes to their senses realizing it's time to quit.)

My guess is that Postle's high shoe lawyers will give up and "persuade" their client to surrender for a peanut settlement long before Veronica, Bill Perkins, ESPN and DNegs cry uncle. (If Postle actually believes he's going to wind up with millions out of this, he is a true idiot. What I can't fathom is why a high tier law firm, staffed by [supposedly] "smart" lawyers, actually agreed to take him on as a client?) Regardless of which side buckles first, this is a dream-come-true case for the lawyers. Tort lawyers live for this kind of case.

I hope somebody is keeping a minute-by-minute diary of the developments in this case. If this imbroglio actually goes to trial, it could make for a good book - maybe even a good movie. Considering how many poker players would be watching, Court TV might go with a live broadcast of the trial. It would be popcorn time indeed watching Postle, DNegs, Scott Van Pelt and Veronica on the stand giving sworn testimony.

It's literally in the title of every post in this 12000 post thread.

It's also implied that everything we say about it is an opinion, since there is no smoking gun.

If I say "OJ did it", does he get to sue me, whereas if I had said "I think OJ did it", he does not?

When Negreanu posts a 3 second video saying "he cheated", it's clearly implied that he's giving his opinion, and he's doing it that way to emphasize that he believes it so strongly he's willing to state it without qualifiers.

Why are they a high tier firm? Because it is based in Beverly Hills? It is a Hollywood entertainment law firm with 5 lawyers.

Why do you think these poker training sites and so on will settle at all and give Postle anything, unless maybe if he agrees to a statement like in the other case admitting he cheated?

It's like when you watch a magic show, if you call it a trick you can be sued unless you can prove it's just a trick. -- "Uh, in my opinion, that was just a trick".

No, no; it's actual magic. -- Mike Postle.

The Postle case was dismissed because the Californian law does not extend to recovery of gambling monies.

That is such a brick wall obstacle there seems to be a free rein given to Californian cheating poker players, who know they cant be prosecuted for their cheating, and Postle has fully exploited this legal loophole.

So even if there had been all the hard evidence in the world against him, it would not have been possible to bring a case against him.

This brings the strange current conundrum of him bringing his own case, as in that case his cheating WILL be examined by a court. This is why his case is so ill considered for him, without the case there is no way he could ever have been found guilty of cheating, by raising it his guilt of cheating will now be established. Assuming Stones aren't bankrolling his legal action, he is a lone figure taking on wealthy poker establishment figures. Looking at the defamation credentials of his legal team shows no defamation expertise within their staff, so look a poor choice. Whoever is advising him in his actions to sue the poker community is doing a remarkably bad job of guiding him, I hope he keeps taking their advice.

Sometimes people have friends or family that come into play. Maybe one of the lawyers is married to Postle's sister or something like that. We may never know (but it helps explain why an out-of-town law firm is involved). But of course a law firm isn't going to dump a lot of money down the drain for a case they think they can't win. But many if not most lawsuits don't make it all the way to the trial phase. The purpose of the suit may be as a shot across the bow of all Postle's detractors and/or to win a small settlement from one or more corporations who will probably be advised to settle for an amount less than their legal fees will be. How many videos have been made accusing Postle of cheating since last week? It's a short time period, but my guess we won't see any more from the defendants. Postle has already made his point and won on that issue. Who's going to dump a lot of money down the drain to prevent him from that small win?

Yes, it seems likely that if Stones or someone was paying for the lawsuit, they would have used a law firm with defamation experience. If a more appropriate firm would have taken the case, then probably Postle would have chosen them. That is why I think Postle got the only or one of a few firms that would take the case on a contingency basis for the publicity and the hopes for a settlement from wealthy players and corporations.

Maybe the law firm thinks they will get a quick settlement. However, it would be bad business for most of the defendants to settle rather than go to trial regardless of the costs and they can probably get donations as Veronica did if needed.

The way I understand defamation law (IANAL, but I am a bit of law junky) is that the Plaintiff has the burden of proof that the defamatory statement was false. I think it would now be impossible to prove that he won by playing fairly. A reasonable person could look at the evidence and conclude that he was cheating.

I also think the defense could use a qualified privlige defense. Brill was an employee of the casino and host of one of the streams. She had a duty to protect the players. ESPN is a sports news network -they can report on newsworthy things. DNegs is a well-known poker player who has a stake in the integrity of the game. The allegations were made to warn of a potential danger to players that the defense had a reasonable basis to believe was present.

The best first move would be to file an anti-Slapp motion to strike. The defendants were exercising their First Amendment rights in a matter of public interest. It's a public interest because the casino is a legally regulated entity, they were actively marketing with Postle's god-like play and cheating in the casino has the potential to deceive and defraud a lot of potential customers of the casino.

If that fails, the defense has the fact that the truth is not determinable and that they had a reasonble basis for reaching their opnion. And of course, it was opinion and not a statement of fact.

Court settlements are frequently made with the stipulation that the parties can not talk about the settlement. If that becomes the case, I don't see how that will hurt anyone's business to any significant degree.

I was looking online to find details of who the plaintiffs are who settled, and who had refused to settle, as those who have settled are gagged, whereas those who have not settled, like Veronica, are still free to speak about the case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...rill-v-postle/

has links to many of the court documents, which are valuable to read in their entirety, instead of having to rely on media summaries. The 25 March First Amended Complaint is particularly interesting, as it explains the case against Postle that went to court. That site also has details of who settled.

That's the way a lawyer thinks, but Polk, Negreanu, Galfond, Hanson, and Ingram are all big names in poker videos. Negreanu has a big endorsement contract. Polk and Ingram made many videos about this. It wouldn't matter what was in the settlement. It would matter that they settled rather than go to trial or let it be dismissed or dropped. It would be bad for their reputations to settle and would give them lots of good publicity if it went to court.

Ok so ive heard this a bunch but something doesnt add up.
Why did Mac Verstanding even try to take this to court if this is true?
He must have been aware of the law before taking the case. What am i missing?

Was he ignorant, did he mislead cleints into a no-win case, or something else?

The judge made the made the decision based on case law, and could have made a different decision.

Ah I see TY

IANAL but I think that ruling was ridiculous. It would make sense if they were playing in a home game, but they were playing in a California licensed gaming establishment. Surely the state has an interest, and to me a moral obligation, in protecting the integrity of games there.

Mac felt he could distinguish this case as not being applicable to the precedent (he also felt that the court may be willing to overturn the policy as being a relic that is no longer applicable to present day problems, but that's a different story and a far less likely outcome).

I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. Suppose California has a law that says "All Candy is to be subject to an additional 10% Tax". They don't say specifically what is candy.

Thus, the Courts will create rulings that clarify what, specifically, is candy.

Let's pretend the Courts have ruled that a Snickers Bar is candy, Godiva Chocolate is Candy, but even the most sugary cereal is not candy because "even the most sugary cereal is not primarily just to be eaten for its sweetness, but rather as a morning meal".

Then Lucky Charms starts selling Lucky Charms Cereal Bars.

Is that candy? Lawyers could argue either side. They all agree that the precedent says Snickers Bars are candy, and Lucky Charms cereal is not candy, and that "even the most sugary cereal is not primarily just to be eaten for its sweetness, but rather as a morning meal".

On the one hand, the cereal bar isn't something you eat in the morning with milk, it's far more like a candy bar that you eat as a snack. But on the other hand, it's a snack bar that's made up of the exact same food that was held to not be candy.

Mac believed he could convince a Judge that the facts of this case meant that the long-standing policy on courts not hearing gambling disputes wouldn't be applicable. You'd have to ask him why he felt that specifically.

There was no California law about this. It was how California courts had ruled in the past. They didn't get involved in gambling disputes, like they didn't get involved in disputes over drug deals.

are you a lawyer? bc that was an extremely well worded and explained example

Could not agree more.

And now I am left craving a Lucky Charms cereal bar.

Dammit.

Yes, I know it's not a law. It's a California judicial precedent. Which is why Mac felt there was a chance he could have it overturned.

My cereal example was trying to be as simple as possible, so it used a hypothetical law instead of a hypothetical judicial policy.

Also, it's not quite right to say California's policy on the courts not being used to resolve gambling disputes is akin to the drug deal policy. Courts never get involved in disputes over illegal activity, but California's judicial policy includes legal gambling disputes, and they've been clear on that. I have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to whether a California court would accept being used to resolve a dispute between a purchaser of recreational marijuana and a seller of recreational marijuana, but I assume the court would be willing to hear the matter.

The gambling policy is not just because of the illegality of the activity. The first case that established the policy said that part of the reason was because the gambling activity was illegal, but also because gambling is immoral and bad for society and yadda yadda yadda. Subsequent cases that covered LEGAL gambling said the same thing, because gambling is bad morals and whatnot.

Carrier v. Brennan is an 1853 case - "It needs no authority or arguments to satisfy this court that the practice of gaming is vicious and immoral in its nature, and ruinous to the harmony and well-being of society....the license [to run a gambling hall] simply operates as a permission, and removes or does away with the misdemeanor [the crime of either gambling or hosting a gambling hall] which existed at common law without changing the character of the contract."

Yes. And Thank you.

Thank you as well. I've seen Lucky Charms cereal bars and Cinammon Toast Crunch cereal bars. Figured Lucky Charms was better as something that could arguably be candy, particularly given the marshmallows in Lucky Charms.

I don't see it that way. If they settled I doubt that many would judge their character or educational content by that. And while they and you and I would want to fight as a matter of principle, paying lawyers for their counsel and then ignoring their advice is a -ev move in most instances. Faced with a $10K settlement and $10K in legal expenses (just to pick numbers) vs $50K in legal expenses in addition to possibly losing the case at trial, few are going to roll the dice on that (and a trial is always a roll of the dice). It's a numbers game that all these guys do on a daily basis. They didn't get where they are by bucking the numbers to any large degree. Plus, some of them have partners in their companies who will want to settle rather than risk being bankrupted by a loss. If their lawyers recommend settling, most or all will settle, imo.

Where can I buy a Lucky Charms cereal bar? That sounds awesome.

I was in a chain reaction automobile accident. The person I hit sued. I had to go to depositions and answer questions from her lawyer. My insurance company's lawyer questioned her about her fake injuries and treatments. Then they settled for the full limits of my insurance, even though the injuries couldn't have been serious.

After he retired, my father was an expert witness in several cases. He went to depositions, but never to trial. He complained that it was difficult how hard the lawyers from major firms representing the corporations being sued questioned him and tried to trip him up.

Rather than settle it quickly, I would think the defendants would want to grill Postle and JFK and present their evidence of truth. If the judge doesn't dismiss it like with the other case, then they might have to settle rather than go to trial. Couldn't the defendants also ask for no confidentiality clause?

Jay Why - that courtlistener link is quite useful, thanks for sharing it.


Nice summary. Enjoyed the candy bar description as well.

From the pokernews op-ed VerStandig wrote:


If anyone wants to understand his goals and reasoning for doing this, it's best to ask him directly, but this 10 September tweet from him may provide some insight:



specifically: "I sue casinos for a living"

Getting that precedent overturned or similarly impacting it in any material way would be nothing but good for him and his firm as far as future opportunities go.

That said, I do think he was genuinely trying to help his clients at the same time.



On an unrelated note, this thread would likely be much improved going forward if posting in it was restricted to accounts created prior to the start of postlegate. Otherwise we're just going to keep getting nonstop trolls and sockpuppets as long as the saga goes on. Dunno if enforcement of that is feasible or not. If I'm the only one who feels this way I'll stfu about it.