But if you did not declare it, asking someone else to help you cash in shows intent. The IRS tends to look rather unfriendly on those actions.

Well worth reading the entire document, but here are some snippets that may address some aspects of the varied debates posters here are having about the possibility of multiple accomplices etc.

Clearly outlines a specific unnamed person(s) that aided directly in accessing stream data :



As a fan of redgrape's fantastic statistical analysis in regards to Postle's multiple hats and whether or not they were mathematical significant to his results, I was somewhat surprised to see that there may in fact be some sort of additional evidence in support of the bone conductor hypothesis in at least several cheating sessions.



Finally, the unnamed person's presence appears to be the individual who impacted whether or not Postle would superuse or not - not Justin as some have speculated.

Can someone clarify why it says "King´s Casino LLC" (p.2, l.12)?

Is Stones part of the famous Czech King´s Casino?

CA has a limit on how much can be cashed within 24 hours by an individual, without being reported by the casino. Thought it was $10K tho.

What the poster appears to be saying is that a player is required to fill out some sort of tax forms (either by law or by Stones policy) if he cashes out a certain amount of chips. In order to avoid those forms the player will often cash out just under that limit. This is not uncommon whatsoever.

The answer is still the same; the police make arrests when they believe a crime has been committed. We, the public, generally are not privy to when the police will arrest somebody until that somebody is actually arrested.

Yeah... this is federal court... you just don't file complaints with spelling errors in them. I'm aghast. Parts of this, including the intro, were rather difficult to parse as well. And that's coming from somebody who knows the situation well.

Also, jurisdictionally... RICO? Under a wire fraud theory? There's an interstate/international communication jurisdictional requirement. In an attempt (?) to satisfy this, the complaint pleads the transmissions of hole card info by Postle's accomplices to Postle. The complaint doesn't allege (nor could it) that these communications were interstate in nature though.

Having your fallback jurisdictional hook be a class action is problematic as well. I'll spare you the details, but assuming that 2/3 or more of the proposed class members are citizens of California, there's a sweet spot you're going to have to hit where: (1) There are so many members in the proposed class that joinder of all of them into the suit is impracticable, and/but (2) There are fewer than 100 members of the proposed class. Even if you can hit that sweet spot, the court could still decline jurisdiction.

So to sum up, this complaint and approach is really underwhelming to me. I shouldnt be able to notice numerous glaring typos (my favorite is para. 148: "The Stoned Fraud Victims") on a readthrough. I shouldn't be able to instantly spot jurisdictional problems.


Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

I assume you need to fill out a form if you cash out for more than 5k, with your name, social security, amount won, etc., so the IRS can track it. If it's less than 5k, you are still required to file your taxes properly at year end, but you don't need to fill out the form.

I suppose it allows the IRS to track big winners at a casino, and compare it with what they file in taxes. If that money is not there as additional income, Ok, but there should be legitimate reasons for why it's missing. Postle may not want to show how big he's winning if his yearly income is declared at a much lower value. Again, there may be legitimate reasons for this, it's more about raising red flags with the IRS.

Verstandig's legal argument looks very solid. There are just so many things that Stones did wrong, in allowing a suspected cheat to continue. Postle is in very bad shape now, and Stones as a business must be in deep trouble too.

FWIW, I was glad to see that Harlan Karnovsky is one of the named plaintiffs. I guess this is where "Harlan and victims" get revenge on Postle.

Disagree on this. Unless someone else was also out of town during that same losing session, I believe they are specifically alleging it is Justin. See also allegation 102.

Just speculation, but after watching some videos of the TD, I'm actually leaning towards him just being a complete moron, and not directly involved in Postle's cheating.

That said, his negligence is so egregious, it almost seems like he's a puppet--a stooge that made the whole fraud possible through is gross in incompetence.

The unnamed person can be JFK, just that there is no direct evidence of it yet which they are hoping comes to light in discovery.

That's my take as well

They are attributing negligence&shadiness to JFK
They are pointing the finger at John Doe 1

They just don't have enough to directly package these as the same person yet

Kings, Casino, LLC is the entity dba as Stones

This from the previous action/fines taken by Commission against owners in 2016.


No. unrelated to Kings in Czech. p.s. I dont think residents outside of CA are allowed to have ownership in Clubs

They could be reaching out to him for cooperation in exchange for staying unnamed and a much reduced penalty/sentence. We went after a company that pissed away 10 MM. Three officers, two were charged and there was a random unnamed defendant that flipped on them.

This hand is nothing like the 86o hand. The 86o hand is as close to a smoking gun that we will get. In the J4o hand, there is nothing odd about how Taylor tells the booth the hand was wrong as their was 30min since the hand took place where the players could have notified the dealer that the hand was wrong while watching the stream, if there was a graphics change, then it would be like the 86o hand bc that would have had to be done in real time.

This J4o hand is very strange though. Whats mind boggling about it is that Mike folds an overpair on a 7 high board to a donk bet, when the graphics show J4o. But it's a correct fold bc he actually has JJ. So many questions about this hand. It needs to be looked at by Matt Berkey/Ryan Feldman. I brought it up to them on twitter and Ryan responded initially but he somehow didn't catch the oddity of this hand. I am hoping they read my responses.

I wonder who their John Doe is. Nobody really fits the bill.









It can't be Taylor because he was around multiple times when Mike didn't cheat. It can't be Justin because he is named and they claim he should have known after watching Mike play or doing an investigation, not because he was in on it. On the other hand it isn't an outsider because John Doe "took steps to allay suspicion and concerns". That only leaves one of the commentators as John Doe afaict.

Not disagreeing with you, as Justin is clearly named throughout the document for other reasons. However, if they were referencing Justin specifically under that last paragraph that I posted, wouldn't his full name appear instead of "when John Doe 1 was absent to the Sacramento area"?? It certainly does in all the other sections. To me, that part of the document reads as Postle doesn't play specifically when John Doe 1 (not Justin) is out of the area due to the fact that John Doe 1 is the necessary ingredient, whereas Justin may have just covered it up after the fact or been otherwise legally negligent. It also points to John Doe 1 being the "chief confederate", not Justin.

Having said all that, in regards to the wording in section #102 which you pointed out, perhaps they are not naming Justin specifically in this part of the document until it can be proven further. I may have falsely assumed that John Doe 1 and Justin weren't the same individual due to the fact they referred to him by name throughout the rest of the document. However, not sure that anyone behind the scenes really fits the bill for the second part of this sentence about allaying suspicions - that does sound like they are pointing at Justin without naming him outright.

Apologies if posted already https://www.pokernews.com/news/2019/...t=pn-hp-hero-1 "Graphics Company Reacts to Mike Postle Cheating Allegations Saga"

I don't know if Stones issues W2G's for live cash poker games. I would imagine not; granted I've never played in California, but I've never been issued a W2G for a cash game in the US: a tourney yes, but not a cash game (although I'm not a tax expert there is an abundantly obvious reason why). Income from a cash game is purely self reported. That said, having someone cash your chips does not mean one is not reporting their winnings.

It can't be Taylor because he was around multiple times when Mike didn't cheat. It can't be Justin because he is named and they claim he should have known after watching Mike play or doing an investigation, not because he was in on it. On the other hand it isn't an outsider because John Doe "took steps to allay suspicion and concerns". That only leaves one of the commentators as John Doe afaict.


It's my understanding that they are using John/Jane Doe 1-10 as there is no ironclad evidence as of yet to tie anyone directly as his accomplice. Even the best evidence that we have, the 89ss hand with Taylor on graphics, is still conjecture. They'd need proof from the casino itself to confirm all of this.

JFK is listed by name as he is the poker room manager and the one who claimed the investigation took place. He can also be a John Doe, as can Taylor.

As Bonomo's Ears said, "They are attributing negligence&shadiness to JFK
They are pointing the finger at John Doe 1. They just don't have enough to directly package these as the same person yet. "

But they clearly allege John Doe 1 was both out of town during one of Postle's losing sessions and also later "took steps to allay suspicions and concerns" about Postle's cheating. Based on everything we know, that points directly at one person.

For instance, watch this interview Justin did with Mike. Why would coconspirator want to highlight some of the absurd plays Postle makes? If you go through Postle's twitter feed from 9/30, he states that Justin had to beg him to go on. Justin comes across as a foolish fanboy as Postle sheepishly goes through hands where he knows he cheated.

As an aside, since @Mike_Postle is still open, you can view his initial public comments regarding the accusations and you'll see that nowhere in those does he deny cheating directly. He talks about is unique style, his winrate, being a single-dad, but never says 'This is bullshit! I don't cheat!!!!'

Edit: I haven't read the complaint yet and it seems like others are saying Justin is being directly implicated as an accomplice. If that's true, I guess I'm wrong and he's like Deputy Doofy from Scary Movie

Guys John Doe 1 is clearly Justin. They can name Justin by name to bring forth factual evidence such as his tweets while also concealing that he is a suspected accomplice i.e. John Doe 1, so as not to publicly out him before discovery.

No clue in California, but at other locations players will exchange chips for cash at the table to avoid filling out forms. The dollar limit is normally higher though, like $9k or $10k. No clue what the forms are called.