?

Slacker .... what, there was no internet where you went on your trip ?

Was there evidence that MP was shown to be using technology with the potential for intercepting the live feed? It seems like this all blew up before they found hard evidence, so now it's unlikely that any evidence will be found.

One solution for the future is to change the technology... use RFID to scan the cards *after* the hand is over (or during a fold), and then the software merges the card info into the video stream when the game concludes. It's a little more complicated, but it's entirely doable and would prevent a situation like what's suspected here.

Man wins lottery 50 consecutive times. I’m a juror.

Prosecutor: Good morning. The chance someone wins this lottery 50 consecutive times by chance is 1 in a trillion. You have to convict. Thank you,

Defendant’s Lawyer: Good morning. The prosecutor just admitted that it’s possible to win this lottery 50 times in a row. You have to acquit. Thank you.

My vote: CONVICT

Where is the evidence? How about 50 consecutive wins!

And me as the juror sitting next to you: what kind of lottery is this in which 50 straight wins is only a 1-in-trillion shot? The probability of winning a coin flip 50 straight times by chance is upwards of one in 1.1 quadrillion.



But yeah, totally agree... for everyone saying versions of "there is no evidence," the results ARE evidence. They might not show HOW someone did it, but they sure as hell show THAT they did it.

Of course, I don't know enough about the actual charges that would levied against such a cheater to know if such evidence could lead to a conviction. You legal eagles, when it comes to criminal trial law: to what extent does the prosecution have to show HOW the defendant did it?

Like watching someone pull ten large bunnies out of one small hat; prove it's not magic.

Yeah, but that’s when Juror number 3 goes “but how much did he lose”

I’m reading that Postle’s attorney has withdrawn from the case, saying that Postle hasn’t been communicating with them.

- Mike Postle's attorney has filed a motion to be dismissed as counsel, claiming Postle violated their agreement, and that he also hasn't been in contact with them since November 3. The hearing for this change will be on January 14.

- We filed an anti-SLAPP motion to get the case dismissed, which would automatically award us attorney's fees (likely 5 figures) if granted. This will be heard on February 10.

- It is possible Postle will not have an attorney for this Feb 10 anti-SLAPP hearing, which will be great for us, obviously.

- We will be aggressively collecting any judgment we receive regarding the attorney's fees, even if it takes years.

- Even if Postle drops the case now, he will still have to face this anti-SLAPP, since it has been filed already.

“Hey mike it’s us, the lawyers. We are gonna need our next installment. Please send $5k to this account”


Three weeks later ...


“It appears our client is no longer communicating with us. We quit due to non payment”


Lol

Slapp? On what grounds? You ready to prove he cheated? He had a fairly clear per se case since he was publically called a criminal, that's per se defamation in California. Good luck. I'm not a lawyer, so I probably have the law wrong, don't take this as legal advice its me talking out my arse.

In a free society it's incumbent on the state to prove the case with something more than theories and a few common actions that people do at poker tables each day. Of course there is enough for an indictment, but for a conviction you'll have too many innocent people in prison. Lets try to put innocent people in prison only if they murdered someone.

But if they murdered someone they are guilty of murder, so should be in prison.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VERONICA BRILL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL L. POSTLE, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:19-cv-02027-WBS-AC

On October 21, 2020, the court denied the Motion to Withdraw by plaintiffs’ counsel and gave the remaining plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint consistent with this court’s Order of June 3, 2020. (Docket No. 63.) On November 18, 2020, Veronica Brill dismissed her claims against defendants without prejudice. (Docket No. 81.) The remaining plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint. Because over thirty days have passed since the court’s order on October 21, 2020, (Docket No. 80), and plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint, the remaining plaintiffs’ claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

This is not the state, its Mike Postle v. a bunch of people in civil court and vice versa. The standard is “More probable than not” or “preponderance of the evidence,” basically tipping a scale 1 way or the other.

Who is "We" ?

And since you filed the anti-SLAPP, can you post your key pertinent PDFs here since its public record anyway?

Don't take this as legal advice either, but I am a lawyer. I do anti-SLAPP litigation. Defendants do not need to prove Postle cheated to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Not even close.

As I said before ITT, I would consider anything less than dismissal under California's anti-SLAPP law a shocking result for Defendants who go that route.

Wait ... did Postle just win the case filed against him ?

This dismissal covers claims covers against Postle, see below link.

lhttps://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/033112086057

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/doc1/033112086057

sloppy cut and pasting ... sorry

The poster above, Chubbs, who talked about "we" and Anti-Slapp stuff might want to link to whatever he is talking about .... start with , who is the "we" he references ?

I do not know anything about Anti-Slapp laws, but since Postle got the federal case against him dismissed, perhaps some legal counsel can post how that dismissal with prejudice might affect the second case, where Postle is the plaintiff ?

Discussion with one of the defence lawyers in this case.
Normally frowned upon to link to this site, but this is just an hour long audio file, not the actual site...

https://pokerfraudalert.com/radio/ra...uit-update.mp3

lol, personally not a fan of that show, but this was interesting about Postle's own litigation in the State court.

Postle's lawsuit looks like it's going to backfire in a big way. I can't believe the pro-Postle crowd still finds ways to chirp in this thread.

As far as I understand, the cases against Postle, Stones etc. were dismissed because it was impossible to proceed based on the judge's ruling and some plaintiffs would rather they be dismissed than take the tiny settlement with the language in it.

Not sure if Postle's suit will backfire, as no one has been served and it has been put on hold due to the virus. Not sure if the intention was to ever serve anyone or really proceed with the case.

I am not an expert, but responding to some things that seem off base.

Looks from his edit that he just cut and pasted a post from the same site that the linked MP3 came from.

These two issues are discussed in that linked MP3. That defendant was proactive, and filed the anti-SLAPP without waiting to be served. The hearing for it will be held via the court's remote video application in February. The only delay will be if Postle gets a new attorney and they request more time.

Looks like the lawyer was seeing those dreams of a big payday from ESPN slowly vanish.