What makes you think there’s a different reason than the most likely one? People sign various forms of NDAs because they have an incentive to do so. Most of the time that incentive is financial.

And I agree that's the most likely reason for NDAs in the first place, but it's not the only reason. Also, it does, in my opinion, leave unanswered questions that would have been nice to have answers to, especially since so many people are interested in this topic.

By the way, many years ago the original management of The Poker Player's Alliance made an offer to me to share how their finances worked (which we were questioning at that time) but they wanted me to sign an NDA. I refused.

Mason

Would you have signed that NDA if they had paid you $1mil to look over their finances?

No I wouldn't. In the history of 2+2, I made a number of decisions that turned down significant money, and other decisions that paid out more money than was necessary.

But the question you should be asking is why would the poker fraud alert person sign an NDA? It seems to me, and perhaps there's something I don't understand, wouldn't someone who wants to attach himself to the words "poker fraud alert" want everything about this situation known?

MM

I'm sure you guys have a good reasons for signing a NDA but it just feels a little icky.

I fully understand you have financial interests but giving publicity to this incident is probably the only significant consequence that is being suffered as the legal avenues failed as well as Stones
not even admitting anything was wrong. (I would never ever play there based on their actions)
Once we start to cover that up then people who scam can essentially get away with it knowing they can throw money at the problem and make it go away.

I don't think this is all that exciting or difficult to understand. When an involuntary bankruptcy petition is filed against someone as is what happened in this case, the Bankruptcy Code allows for recovery of legal fees and costs by the alleged Debtor if the case gets dismissed without the consent of both the alleged Debtor and the petitioning creditors. [Bankruptcy Code Section 303(i)(1)]. If the Court finds the involuntary petition was filed in bad faith by the creditors, additional damages can be awarded as well. [Bankruptcy Code Section 303(i)(2)].

I don't have any specific information in this case other than what has been reported to the public in various news items, but MP disputed the involuntary petition and filed a Motion to Dismiss it on the basis that not enough proper creditors filed the involuntary petition. In resolution of that Motion, all parties agreed to the dismissal of the case. Probably some $$ changed hands (or a slight reduction in the judgments owed by MP), and/or a waiver of any Motion to award legal fees, in lieu of further litigation in the BK Court over whether the involuntary petition was properly filed and/or whether legal fees and costs should be awarded if the Motion to Dismiss was granted.

Considering the animosity between some of these parties as has been part of the public reporting of this matter, seems like a fair and smart resolution of the Bankruptcy case by all while leaving the judgments in tact and collectable outside of the Bankruptcy system.

Why not ask the "poker fraud alert person" directly, who now posts on your former site?

The confidentiality agreement only pertains to the involuntary bankruptcy portion of the whole matter, wihch frankly shouldn't be very exciting to anyone, as it doesn't pertain to the general Postle controversy or the main court case.

I did not sign anything which prevents me from talking about any aspects of the general Postle controversy (or the original defamation case), and still plan to talk about those matters when I see fit. I think the world can easily go on without knowing the specific details of the involuntary bankruptcy case settlement.


Best wishes,
Todd

Appreciate your willingness to share information on this matter.

Fair enough, although I happen to think the world can quite easily go on with at least one fewer poker commentator (and with many fewer lawyers).

my lizard brain can't understand this

if it's a bankruptcy settlement then his assets are liquidated until he has paid of debts correct? so he said he you need x dollars I'll give you 1.1x dollars if you agree not to say what number x is?????

i don't get it, perhaps i my inexperience in lawsuits is showing

I'm no lawyer but I've sniffed around both the financial and NDA elements you are talking about. I'm sure there are more currently active posters in those realms here. But at a basic level, there are different types of bankruptcy. The most common type for individuals is a chapter 7 liquidation, in which the court oversees sale of your assets of value to pay off those you owe, and when the assets are gone, the rest of the debt is usually wiped out, but then your credit is **** for the next 7-10 years or so. However, it's not like they sell off everything you own and leave you on the street, I believe the whole point of an individual filing bankruptcy is to receive some protection from the court for necessities like personal home and car, which you can keep (within reason).

You mention paying 1.1 dollar per dollar owed in exchange for the NDA, but I think the reverse is true, the creditors usually have to settle for some fraction of what they are owed, or face perhaps getting nothing at all. Basically if you are chasing someone who owes you money using a collection agency or something, the odds are pretty abysmal of seeing substantial repayment. In a bankruptcy, the court handles the collection and probably eventually says something to the creditor like "look, I know they owe you $10K, but we sold everything we can and divided it among the creditors, and your share is $3K. There is no more. And to get your $3K, part of the offer is to sign this NDA."

As Dan_Druff described, there isn't anything nefarious about the NDA. Bankruptcy filings probably have tons of personal financial information involved which the general public has no business knowing, so they protect it behind an NDA.

That all describes a chapter 7 liquidation, but you can also file chapter 13 as an individual, which basically just reorganizes your debts and puts you on a payment plan. Not as drastic as a full liquidation, generally used to buy the debtor some time, and maybe prevent a foreclosure or something.

Any real experts, please feel free to correct anything I've screwed up.

This seems a very reasonable explanation. I think RRs point on the 1.1x thing was slightly different though and he was meaning they say instead of paying you $10k and the amount is public I will pay you $11k, sign a NDA, and we keep it quiet. I would be surprised if it ever worked like that and I'm sure it didn't with Postle!

I agree, I figured that's where he was going with it, that the debtor would pay a "premium" over what is actually owed in order to get the other parties to sign an NDA. That sort of thing might happen in a tort settlement (think of Prince Andrew hush money to the underage hookers, for example), but I also doubt that it's a normal part of bankruptcy. If someone had the money to pay over what they actually owe, they wouldn't need bankruptcy in the first place.

While y'all at this, you might look up "fraudulent conveyance" as well should you speculate about any payments actually changing hands, whether @ 1.1 x or 0.99 x or some other figure. I also don't think a payment of legal fees to a creditor's counsel escapes coverage.

But, I am just asking stuff as an outside observer, I am not representing nayone re this sh*tshow.

thanks for the insight guys, seems reasonable a third party would want the nda given they'd now know intimate details of the other's estate which i agree doesn't need to be public knowldge

Nine out of ten professional poker players bankrolls were built on all sorts of scams, bankroll chopping, %swapping, scummy home games to net + harpoon whales, a lucky tournament bink, etc.

All their bankrolls are winding back down to zero.

If this guy cheated, he's going broke eventually anyway.

Who cares?

#StackThis

Well, yes, that's what this thread is about now. Good that you noticed, I guess.

Yeah, I'm black and slow, I start out like Floyd Mayweather, but finish like "Rocky Balboa."

Wow, call me "Stackdradomous," I wasn't even going to take time to read this $hit thread, but I just did.

I called it.

95 out of the 100 "Pros" in my town sell insurance or real estate now.

"My scams won't work, it just isn't my day."

I'll be here with the cockaroaches grinding out a modest middle class or upper middle class income, whatever 100k a year is in "Brandon's America" until I die.

Love to hear Mason talk about “highly unethical” things after he allowed imposters to imposter the victims on the Eli Elezra thread in a desperate attempt to raise book sales after getting tricked and lied to by Elezra.

Good thing FBI had Elezra’s other interviews and podcast taken down after he took the bait from these imposters and put the victims families and kids in danger.

Can you provide some more context or link to a relevant thread about this?

This is an open forum and I didn't allow or not allow anything. If there were problems in the posts, we relied on our moderators to take care of it, and that was something which I was hardly ever involved with.

And where did this come from?

MM

You didnÂ’t allow anything? You didnÂ’t talk to a imposter on the phone and help them set up a account to bust Elezra in his lies?

Bet some Russian men that Elezra owed would beg to differ or bet.

You had many conversations with a person posing to be one of the victims wife or daughter? They may of tricked you at first. But, you knew later.

Account that you help set up was shuffled around to different names and provoked Eli to go on various outlets spewing tales and stories of mobsters and lies about his victims.

FBI had them taken down off those sites for some unknown reason. Hmmmm

Next time you should find out if your talking to the person you think before you allowed the victims of Elezra to get slaughtered for baited post by a imposter.

I think for Sensationalism? Right? ThatÂ’s what the recordings of you sound like the that the imposter played to the victims.

Need I say more

wait what?

You really want more posts on whatever the supposed topic is ?