That's not exactly what I said. First, as far as we know, no one has been served yet. Second, the potential defendants probably don't have lawyers yet, hence they don't yet have the advice of counsel. Third, I don't know what their lawyers will advise. Fourth, the defendants/counsel may want to go through the discovery phase before making final determinations regarding possible settlements. Fifth, if I had made such public statements and believed them to be true, and had the money and time to dedicate, I might very well let the case go to trial. But that's me.

As for what the potential defendants should do, I don't feel comfortable telling them that and won't criticize them for what they decide. Based on personal experience taking on an issue for the benefit of others that wasn't in my best interest, it doesn't work out the way you think. Others sometimes won't back you up or appreciate efforts made on their behalf. As for whether I think poker players will stick together on an issue, if history is any indication, that's a long shot. Most poker players are notorious for doing what's in their immediate best interest, let the benefit of the community be damned. If that was not the case, the rake would be lower in the low stakes games, and the Venetian wouldn't have a poker room (and if the current allegations are true, Stones would have to close theirs). But in this instance, the defendants are a small finite number and may very well decided to stick together. And most are popular enough to get the moral support, and possible some financial support, from the poker community.

But don't underestimate the influence of others not personally involved in these incidents, but who have a financial interest in the outcome of the lawsuit. The partners and investors of the sued corporations will have a say in any possible settlements. They may back up the accused offender or not, and may "out-voted" those who don't want to settle.

That's sounds reasonable. But if my lawyer advised that doing that will add $10K to my expenses, but I would still have some chance of losing, I would certainly have to consider settling for an amount less than that, unless the issue was personal to me or I needed to make a point.

You can argue that, but I suspect you're wrong. Calling someone a cheat is questioning their moral character. That would effect their life outside of the immediate circumstances. For example, if I had a reputation as a cheater at cards I might find it hard to get a job where I would be required to handle money, or in law enforcement. I certainly couldn't get a security clearance with the federal government.

Or to illustrate it another way, are you positing that if I shot someone during a poker game for cheating in California I couldn't be prosecuted because I did it while I was gambling? I don't think you are. But that might follow from your stated reasoning.

It pretty clearly is personal, at least with Veronica. There are also how many more videos you can sell due to the publicity of going to trial. Plus the opportunity to present evidence of truth in court.

Have there been other cases of suing for defamation, when the allegations were pretty clearly true? I mentioned the only case I know of was Oscar Wilde and he wound up in jail. I am sure that it was personal to the defendant. Obviously, there are different attitude towards homosexuality 130 years later.

Personally, I think that those chasing Postle should stop, as they have won the moral victory, as thanks to their case the poker world now justifiably believes Postle cheated, and all recognise only the anomaly of the Californian laws not allowing gambling related cases has stopped him from being charged and found guilty on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence against him.

OK, so they have lost money to him at the table, but as I always think, you have to pay for your education in poker, and this was an expensive lesson to all involved against him. And the costs of things going wrong for them if losing are high, and not really worth the risk, and could outweigh the damages they would get if winning.

Similarly Postle has little to gain from trying to get legal revenge on those questioning his character, as he could take comfort from the fact that the case against him was never proven, and the risks of losing the case compared to winning it aren't high enough to justify continuing the action.

It is all too personal now, like a divorce case, where the people involved lose sight of the fact legal costs swallow up the assets of the arguing couple, no one wins apart from the lawyers.

The only good outcome would be gambling issues becoming legally enforceable, as that will prevent endless new Postles ruining poker and exploiting their legal immunity.

Haven't followed this case in a while, but I'd imagine Postle is not in hiding at the moment. What exactly is keeping all the people who lost their money to him from collecting their money in their own ways or at least get closure by neutering him? Not necessarily advocating violence but I'm legit curious as he must have ruffled some nasty feathers in all those sessions -especially in the live-poker rec department- it seems very likely there's some people along the way he wished he had stayed away from if you catch my drift...

Your "drift" is that you want to talk around and pretend, in some weird macho posture, to discuss your "legit" curiosity about some revenge/reckoning fantasy scenario.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Poker players are about EV. Going to jail over some schmuck is not EV. Getting ripped off also doesn't make normal people into violent people.

There is absolutely no reason for the poker community to settle this when there is discovery and truth is an obvious defense and the deeper any person who understands any of math, statistics, poker or expert witnesses looks into his case the clearer it is he cheated and Postle is clearly bluffing to try and get settlements from the deeper pockets

There are enough deep pockets in the poker community (guys like Perkins) who would likely fund any expenses that the poker community couldn't quickly crowdfund

If 100k+ was needed for a legal defense I have no doubt it would be raised quickly. Postle needs to go down, and enough poker players are happy to chip in 10-100 bucks (or a lot more in the case of the deep pockets) to see it happen. I only donated a small amount personally as a token moral support (the goal was already met on Veronica's fundraiser when I saw it) but would donate a ton more if it would make the difference between the poker community settling or fighting this

He's just bluffing to try and get a settlement from at least one party, then will try and use that settlement as 'evidence' he didn't cheat to 'both sides of the story' the general public that isn't paying close attention

IMO all those poker players who settled the last lawsuit for a measly $40,000 and let those guys off the hook are cowards and should be banned from the community just like Postle is.

And if they didn't settle?
What would have been achieved?

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Leave the possibility for future litigation open but the biggest thing was not having to make a cowardly statement absolving the parties of any wrongdoing all for a few hundo. But you do you.

They got about $600 dollars each. But the point is, the early bailers out found the case wasn't the slam dunk they had thought it was, so they weighed up the pros and cons of carrying on, and decided it was not worth their while carrying on. And that is fair enough as I am not in their shoes, nor are any of us, so if they decided they wanted to stop, that is their choice, just as it was their choice in the first place to raise the case. Same credit to those who have chosen to carry on. This is all unprecidented, so the rights and wrongs will only be clear ahead in the future.

Those that did not settle include people with much more personal investment and knowledge and insight, Veronica, the lovely Duck who I so hopelessly fancy and am amused by, and Jake, well done Jake, not got any positive recognition for challenging what he saw on the stream, people I think are really genuine and offended by what happened and want to see justice happen against a repulsive dishonest cheating pig like Postle, who demonstrably would cheat his own brother, let alone people he misleads into thinking he sees as friends, and then rips off.

Fantasy scenario? This happens in homegames, I don't see how this is any different.

The simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of civil litigation is settled out of court, somewhere on the order of 90% of all cases. I can’t think of a single case in our practice that has gone to trial without costing $40,000 in fees and we represent plaintiffs almost exclusively (who generally pay far less than corporate defendants). The usual pattern in our practice is cases either settle very early when it’s obvious one side will lose or at the conclusion of discovery & summary judgment, which probably runs around 10k on average. It’s pretty logical for defendants to complete discovery and take a shot at an immediate win and to settle if they can’t get the case kicked. Trials are expensive and the outcomes are uncertain when the facts are simple and easy to understand. In a case like this, where the average juror is going to be very confused by the evidence, I’d say the verdict is likely to be a coin flip even if those of us who understand poker find the evidence overwhelming.

You said it better than I did.

It depends on what the case looks like after discovery etc. How much evidence of cheating will the defense find aside from that based on HHs etc.? Presumably a lot of the physical evidence has been destroyed, but that won't look too good. The complaint said Postle placed his phone there because he was overwhelmed with nude pictures from different women. How ludicrous will that sort of thing seem even to non poker players. How bad will Postle and JFK come off at depositions etc.?

prairiebreeze:

That's what I'm thinking. Once Postle's "entertainment lawyers" start getting buried in motions and document demands, (while watching the cost of pursuing this litigation skyrocket), it won't be long until they're waving the white flag. If there's any justice in the world, both his lawyers - and Postle himself - will rue the day they filed their little defamation suit.

As I understand it, no one has been served and nothing has been filed yet, is that correct? Can any lawyers comment on the possibility of him seeking quick settlement with any of the parties without doing these things?

eenvis:

I do not wish any mafia style "revenge" or physical violence visited upon Mike Postle. It would be tragic indeed if the poker world was deprived of a great poker talent due to an act of senseless violence.

After his defamation suit is concluded and he's totally vindicated, I'm sure MP is planning to start his own poker training site selling poker videos in direct competition against Doug Polk.

It's much better (and more entertaining) to allow the legal system to slowly grind MP into submission. It's roughly akin to watching a boa constrictor tightening the grip on its next meal.

In our practice, cases very rarely settle at the demand letter phase. Usually when they do it’s because the plaintiff wants something very simple, like “stop saying bad things about me and if anyone asks in future promise to say a nice thing or I’ll sue.” Often if the statements are coming from a subset of employees, the employer wants them to shut up anyhow. Once in a blue moon, where the facts are so embarrassing that the defendant would be harmed by the complaint, they settle before we file. In those cases, we usually prepare the complaint and give them a copy advising them we intend to file shortly. We used to occasionally take cases where we were only paid to investigate and write a demand letter, but we stopped doing that because it basically never works.

A few more cases settle shortly after we file the complaint, usually where the evidence is pretty overwhelming and the other side does some internal fact gathering and decides they don’t like the way it looks. Most cases settle anywhere from the start of discovery to the onset of trial. One thing you might be surprised to know is that judges often exert significant pressure on both sides to settle, sometimes threatening to make harmful rulings if one side or the other if they don’t compromise.

A longtime paralegal's view on the recently filed Postle lawsuit

This guy claims the complaint or whatever it is was poorly written. Not sure how accurate the rest of what he says is, but I'm pretty sure the Sandmann case wasn't settled for a quarter of a billion dollar payout, when that was the full amount he was seeking.

I was wondering if the thing was written hastily because it was never intended to be filed.

Are you billing hourly for the discovery and MSJ or are you working the pre-trial phase for a set fee as some sort of hybrid billing? I'd say that 10k is a very fair price.

From the article Tim quotes by the paralegal. The complaint doesn't go much into why the damaging statement were false because they are not false.

There are also issues about damages, because Postle is not prevented from playing poker, it has been hard for anyone to play with the lockdown, and he may not have paid taxes on large amounts of income in the past.

Another point, which the author does not go into too much is that the complaint also talks about Postle not being invited to games, but most legal games do not require an invitation.

We typically bill hourly against a retainer. In some cases where the client is nervous about costs we will quote a flat fee up through MSJ (our practice is almost exclusively federal) plus costs. Our practice is a bit unique in that we exclusively practice in one fairly narrow area and our volume is such that we have a pretty good idea of what is going to be involved. We very often have experience with the adverse party and opposing counsel from prior cases, which also helps us estimate what will be involved. Of course, we are also sometimes spectacularly wrong.