So the plaintiff's lawyer in the other case admits that it was California precedent that the courts did not get involved in gambling disputes, even when casinos refused to pay jackpots? So this wasn't just a strange decision by the judge? It was understood that there was a good chance the judge would dismiss the case on that grounds? He says he was trying to overturn precedent? Had there been any California cases where the courts did get involved in gambling disputes?

I don't think that's unusual. I think lawyers float a lot of "test cases" like this hoping that the exact circumstances of their case will reverse precedent. If it works, it opens up more lines of action down the road. If it doesn't, it was at least worth trying.

A bit curious as I don't know much about 2+2 protocol or US law.....but, would it be possible for admins to track these "new" accounts by IP address to cross check if they could be Postle? I get this can't be released on forum/publicly. Just saying if it can proven to be Postle coming in here writing stuff, some of it could hurt his case? (depending on what was posted)

Also apologies, I can't figure out how to quote just the last sentence in the post above.

It would be possible for the defense to subpoena Postle's phone and internet companies to get IP addresses and then subpoena 2+2 to get any usernames that posted from those IP addresses.

I have a forum and got a subpoena from the FBI for ip addresses and time/date data for a particular poster. He went to jail for blackmailing his previous employer and was in a halfway house posting from a flip phone about them. He was convicted of breaking the terms of his parole and went back to prison.

If "California has had a doctrine prohibiting the use of courts to collect on gaming disputes", then how can Postle claim damages from libel? Aren't his damages related directly to loss of income from gambling?

First, it isn't a gambling dispute. Second, he's filing for libel and slander per se, meaning he's claiming the statements against him are damaging on their face. So he doesn't have to prove damages to win on those two claims.

One could argue that. One could also argue what the post right after yours argued.

The policy has mostly been about not being used to resolve gambling debts, there's no case (at least from a very, very quick search) about whether it also applies to other activities arising out of the same gambling activity. So, just like my Lucky Charms example, you'd have a spot where, if it actually went to trial (and there's like a .00001% chance this case goes to trial), Postle's lawyers would argue the policy does not preclude a libel/slander claim relating to cheating at the gambling activity, and the defendant's attorneys would argue it does apply. I do think the argument to apply the "no gambling disputes" wouldn't focus on the lack of damages, but rather just that the libelous statements themselves concern his behavior at a gambling table - i.e. "You are a cheater at gambling" shouldn't be held to be libelous since it is something that only concerns how one acts while participating in what California courts have already held to be immoral and bad behavior and degenerate and yadda yadda yadda.

The best argument I could find for the defendants would be from a 1948 case (Wallace v Opinham) "Public policy prompts courts to decline to distinguish between degrees of turpitude of parties who engage in outlawed transactions. Otherwise courts might be compelled to decide which party cheated the most." Now, that was over an illegal gambling game, but the concept is that the Courts don't want to concern themselves with who cheated who and who cheated at gambling since gambling is by it's nature already immoral and degenerate, so once you're already in immoral behavior, there's no such thing as more or less immoral.

In other words, claiming Postle is a cheater at poker isn't defamatory since anyone playing poker is already immoral, that Postle is MORE immoral than others is irrelevant.

But that isn't necessarily going to win, a Judge could easily accept whatever argument from Postle's side that a defemation case relating to gambling is not the same (and thus doesn't fall under the no gambling claims policy).

So - in other words - you COULD be right. This is one reason why everyone hates lawyers - we really can't give straight answers a lot of the time because the answer really comes down to "well, you could argue that, and maybe it would convince a judge, but maybe it wouldn't".

See my post above. I could definitely argue (and feel confident enough that it's got a decent chance at winning) that a defemation/libel/slander claim arising only out of one's behaviors in gambling activities would be barred under the same public policy (and as far as I know, no one is alleged to have said that Postle is a bad father, or a drunk driver, or that he has STDs, or that he cheated on his high school tests, but only that he cheated at poker - if I'm wrong, I apologize).

Why The Poker Community Should Fight Mike Postle To The Bitter End

I have read (and carefully considered) George Rice's compelling argument in reply 12172 of this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=12172

George argues that Joey Ingram, Daniel Negreanu, Doug Polk, Phil Galfond, Bart Hanson, et al. should accept their lawyers advice and settle with Postle - along with a stipulation that all discussion of this case (and terms of the settlement) cease once the agreement is signed.

George makes a good (a strong) argument, but this is the one case where the poker community should fight. If Mike Postle and Justin Kuraitis are allowed to get away with this relatively unscathed, it sends a message to all the other cheaters (as well as poker room operators like Stones) that they can do their cheating - and turn a blind eye to same - with impunity. If Postle, Kuraitis (and Stones) get away with this, it sends a message to all the other California card rooms that it's open season on poker players. Knowing they can't be held accountable and will pay a miserly pittance for a settlement in the rare cases when somebody like Postle is exposed, cheaters (and their accomplices) will continue plying their trade.

This case graphically illustrates the "big problem" with poker - as opposed to all the other forms of gambling that card rooms and casino operators offer. Unlike blackjack, slots, and all the other table games like craps, baccarat, and roulette; the operators have approximately zero percent incentive to stop player cheating. Poker is the one [casino] game where the operators really don't give a poop if somebody like Mike Postle is cheating his opponents - it's no sweat off their balls if Mike Postle is stealing other players' money.

If Mike Postle had devised a clever scheme - possibly with inside help - to steal money from the blackjack tables, you only need watch the movie "Casino" to see how card rooms used to deal with blackjack cheaters. For the games where their own money is at risk, casino operators watch those games like a hawk. In the "old days," somebody like Mike Postle trying to cheat at blackjack would have been 86'd - at a minimum.

If there was any doubt, this Stones/Postle case has made it crystal clear to poker cheats - especially California poker cheats - that they can practice their craft with relative impunity. From the cheaters perspective, the only "mistake" MP made was getting too greedy. If he had throttled his greed with an [occasional] spectacular bad call, (or had an occasional "losing" session), he would probably still be making a nice living plying his cheating trade. Because the operators will not police the poker games, (as their only incentive is in collecting the rake), it is up to us players to flush out (and expose) cheaters like Postle. (If we don't do it, nobody else will.)

This is easy for me to say as I'm not one of the defendants and I'm not paying for the cost of litigation. (I do intend to send small donations - maybe $100 each - to Veronica Brill and Todd Witteles once I find their mailing addresses, but otherwise I don't have a dog in this fight - I wasn't one of the 20+ defendants who have been sued by Postle.)

For what he has [allegedly] done, Mike Postle should be nailed to the wall. After the dust has settled and all the courtroom jousting is over, he should be left bankrupt and penniless. (Since what he has done is not a "criminal" offense under California law, we can't look forward to seeing him imprisoned, but that would be just punishment for his deeds.) This is the one case where we need to make an example of Mike Postle - he must be forced to pay a high price for the damage he has inflicted on the poker community. (Postle deciding to sue Veronica, Polk, Ingram, Negreanu, Galfond, Witteles, et al. for "defamation" is equivalent to pouring salt in the wound - as if he's laughing and gloating while holding up his middle finger.)

If we, the collective poker community, allow Postle, Kuraitis, and card room operators like Stones to get away with such blatant cheating; we will have only ourselves to blame when the games become impossible to [honestly] beat. By filing his lawsuit, Postle has declared war - he is in effect declaring that he has a right to cheat and steal from his fellow poker players. This is a fight we can't back down from. We can't let Postle and Kuraitis do **** like this and get away with it.

Veronica Brill and Bill Perkins are the true heroes in this - along with all the other defendants who have stated that they intend to fight. (It is especially grating that Veronica is being made to suffer as Postle would probably still be pulling his crap if Veronica had chosen to remain quite. It took real courage for her to do the right thing.)

If we truly love the game of poker and want it to be a game of skill rather than a cesspool of cheating, we have a moral obligation to join them in the defense of our beloved game.

P.S. I agree with chopstick's suggestion that strangers should not be allowed to post in this thread.

It's easy to say "fight it to the bitter end" when you aren't the one paying the lawyers to actually fight that fight to the bitter end.

If he sticks to his word, Bill Perkins seems to have that angle covered. And I haven't seen any info about him that would make me think he's gonna back down.

Deep pockets ftw! Oh, plus entertainment value

AB:

I've committed to donating $200.00 ($100.00 each) to Veronica Brill and Todd Witteles to help defray their attorney fees. If 10,000 (or better yet 20,000) of our fellow poker players do likewise, there will be enough money to pay the lawyers.

What I envision - what I would love to see - is this going all the way to trial and watching Postle cut to pieces on the witness stand by a really great litigator. (Since Postle appears to have [allegedly] led a life of scamming people, it won't be that difficult for a good lawyer to skewer him in front of a jury.) Seeing Postle having to declare personal bankruptcy because he's buried in attorney fees would be nice too.

That would make this worth the price of admission.

I think the case against Postle may be coming from the wrong angle. It seems more sensible to focus on pressurising Californian politicians to legislate that poker is a game of skill, and as such cheating is unlawful. Then Postle could be pursued under the new legislation.

The situation where Californian poker players have no legal protection, though the government is merrily happy to condone the players when it suits them by taxing the same players, is clearly damaging. Enforceable legislation in poker would increase the volume of poker, and more taxes for the government, so win win all round.

I agree with the idealism you express here but the real world isn't so accommodating to ideals.

I think if newbies like me aren't breaking any rules and attempt to contribute to the conversation, why shouldn't we?

No.

Yes.

Postle can't be found guilty of cheating under the existing Californian legislation that views gambling as outside legal controls. But if that changed with new legislation, then he could be found guilty under the new legislation.

Trying to find him guilty within the existing framework is a dead end, hence the need to find another solution.

No.

Poker players don't have the clout to change the laws. You can't be tried under an ex post facto law (after the fact) under the US Constitution and presumably not in any state. Maybe that is OK in England where the poster in presumably from and that is why it was included in the US Constitution.

That firm representing Postle probably wants defamation experience. Being in Hollywood, there might be a big market for representing celebrities in those cases. I wouldn't say that publicity is the only reason. However, presumably firms more qualified turned it down, and publicity and getting experience were reason for taking a case that would be be profitable based on expected contingency fees.

Do you think a law like this one would work?

I mean really. Did we "fight to the bitter end" against Russ Hamilton? Howard Lederer?

All it took to rehabilitate Dutch Boyd was a televised final table experience.

What makes Mike Postle so particularly pernicious?

Google ex post facto laws. The "No" side (Angus) wins ....

Here, I'll help you out: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ost-facto-laws

The others didn't sue for defamation.

What a horrible take. Laws don’t work like that.

The way to get Postle is burying him in his own lawsuit. If/Once it gets to discovery, he’s toast.

This is very true and thinking about it that way it just struck me that he may try to settle with some of the people, and once that has been done and no one else wants to settle he'll just drop the suit before he's deposed.

I wonder if the zillion plaintiffs in that case were aware that it was a test case to overturn precedent.


IMO the defendants should go through discovery, depositions, etc. and reevaluate at that point if the case hasn't been dismissed.

There are costs and potential costs of going to trial, but also favorable publicity. They can take a hard line and offer Postle a tiny settlement or refuse to settle. It would be hard for Postle's lawyers to go to court with a case they were unlikely to win. It is an unusual situation to have a defamation case in which the case for truth seems this strong.

Veronica has donations for whatever expenses she needs and probably little assets. I don't think if she will ever settle with Postle and wonder if his lawyers would want to go through with a trial against her.