Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
Actually George I like his argument relating to his damage element of “lost winnings” because he is unable to practice his “occupation” and gamble. At one point the complaint claims he lost “wages” as damages. We know this is not true. Winnings aren’t wages. If the court follows Kelly and doesnt allow a gambling loss dispute as in the original case, I find it unlikely it would allow Postle to present his loss of future “winnings” as a damage element.
Anyone know if the complaint was filed? The longer this goes without the case being filed, it is looking more like a bluff by a “crisis management” firm.
jjjou812:
You may be on to something ...
If what the paralegal noted, (i.e. that the pleading document was not stamped with a "Filed" notice and assigned a [court] docket number), if all that is true it begins to appear that this could very well be a bluff. (A key question is whether any of the named defendants have actually been served?
To this point I don't know of any [named] defendants who have confirmed that they have been served.)
Mike Postle seems to consider himself a clever fellow - the kind of chap that will run a bluff. Maybe he had a brainstorm with somebody at that law firm. The "discussion" might have gone something like this:
Lawyer: "Great idea Mike! We'll write up a lawsuit, put it out on the internet, and scare the s**t out of all your tormenters."
Mike: "Yea, that'll shut them up!"
The reaction MP got to this ploy may not have been what he was expecting ...
I won't believe Postle is actually going through with this unless (and until) one or more of the named defendants confirm that they have been served.