[/QUOTE]

Thanks.

I do not practice in California nor defamation or libel law, and offer no legal advice on California laws which may apply.

Any lawyers, and only lawyers please, care to discuss whether "slander per se" or "libel per se" causes are ever dismissed on a motion to dismiss in practice ? Do they always end up going to a fact finder ?

Also, in a defamation/libel cause, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove the statements are false, isn't it ?

Would an anti-slapp move by the defendant(s) affect what the plaintiff must show, as the basis for alleging falsity ? Cf. Bellino v. Judge or http://californiaslapplaw.com/defamation-statutes/

Defamation per se is often dismissed on a regular or anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss (in Nevada it's a motion to dismiss, in California it's a motion to strike, yada yada). Just because a plaintiff claims speech is defamatory on its face doesn't make it so; it doesn't punch plaintiff's ticket to discovery.

For the plaintiff to prevent the anti-SLAPP motion from being granted, he has to establish a probability of prevailing on the underlying defamation claim. A public figure plaintiff not only has to establish a probability that the speech was false, but that the defendants knew it was false when they spoke.

There's probably some guidance from the California courts about what "a probability of prevailing" means (I'm guessing it's close to, but less than, a preponderance of the evidence) but I'm not going to research it now.

Like I said before itt, if this gets to a fact finder, something has gone disastrously wrong for defendants.

IV Plaintiff’s Burden

Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing that the lawsuit arises out of protected activity, then the motion becomes “a summary judgment in reverse.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 719.)

This means that the Plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate, through admissible evidence, that there is a viable basis in both law and fact for the lawsuit. (See, Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1062 [The standard is “similar to that employed in determining nonsuit, directed verdict or summary judgment motions.”].)

This means that the plaintiff must present evidence showing that he or she would establish a prima facie case at trial. However, affidavits on information and belief, within the context of a special motion to strike a SLAPP suit, are inadequate to establish a probability of prevailing on the claim and are permitted only when the facts to be established are incapable of positive averment. (Evans v. Unkow (1995), 38 Cal.App.4th 1490.)

I don't understand about per se etc. However, if it isn't dismissed and they go through discovery etc., the plaintiff's case should look really weak.

Presumably, the defense will present evidence about how he always had the phone there and was staring at it at certain times. Probably, the phone was destroyed and the overhead pictures which might show what was on the phone were also destroyed. Then the plaintiff will present Postle's testimony about how he needed to have the phone there because he was getting nude pictures from multiple women.

Probably Polk, Ingram, Galfond, and Negreanu will testify about the play of hands only making sense if he knew his opponents cards. Then Postle will testify it was his lucky hand or he folded or called based on feel. How will Postle handle cross examination as compared to how Ingram etc. will handle it? You don't need to be a poker player to see who is more believable.

Then for damages, is he really prevented from playing poker? Can he show a history of income based on tax returns etc.? Is he even allowed to sue for expected gambling income?

No live reads in poker. Not even when you play low stakes.

Still nothing new here? Man I hate weak horrific human beings who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. As they say there is clear 100% evidence of wrongdoing. Great. Then if you care enough to make it public in your Youtube channel then there is only one way to go: you inform the law enforcement.

Thats why it will never go to trial with all these defendants and all these lawyers.... If the cases ever does go to trial, it would likely cost $200,000 in attorney fees PER defendant, plus at least $25,000 - $50,000 in costs per defendant (as a conservative estimate, based on insurance defense lawyer rates)..... and a jury could literally just award a $1,000 verdict.

He wasn't fired from a job and he can still play poker.

Defamation cases need a real job with provable income.

This is not true. You can be for example actor, who lose income bc of deformation.

Bad plastic surgery?

But he can still show up at public poker places and play poker. He can walk into Bellagio today and play any game he wants.

He has a duty to mitigate damages.

How did Postle lose income?

Yep. If I'm the defense attorney I'm calling every casino in northern California and Reno areas and asking if Postle is banned from their property. As long as a few say no then the deposition questions write themselves.

Also has be been banned from Stones? Could be an interesting set of questions for the casino. If they have banned him why did they do so when your internal investigation showed no cheating. If they haven't banned him then it really puts a damper on his "I can't play poker" argument

The jury could award $1000 or find for the defendants.

Maybe that is their aim. Even though the plaintiff has a bad case, if it isn't dismissed, the defendants will have to settle to avoid the expense of going to trial.

I’m willing to bet you that:
1) 4 of the defendants will be let out of the litigation because of early motion practice on the pleadings, or
2) ESPN is the first defendant out of the case.

Either side of bet is fine with me.

What are you trying to say by "either side of bet is fine with me".

Your descriptions are not mutually exclusive, try framing a real wager if you want action.

A parlay ?

An over/under on the # of defendants who are dropped by whatever you mean by "early motion" practice ? Do you mean a motion to dismiss of some sort ?

These are two separate bets. I will take 4 or less or the other side and 4 or more. I would count the related parties as one entity (upswing and Polk). Or espn is the first or not the first out.

Yes, a motion to dismiss is early motion practice...before significant discovery. I think we will see a few early motions for failure to state a claim in the current pleadings (for example, the joint and several allegation that the defendants were engaged in a conspiracy is probably improper and I’m not convinced jurisdiction is proper) before motions to dismiss can be filled.

If he's really suing, he's not bluffing.At the very least he can produce a clean phone.

Lets say you are a prostitute and someone falsely says you have hiv, and you've been infecting your customers, and everyone believes it. Can you still turn tricks? Technically, sure.

I see your point.

But surely if he was a cheater who relied on live streaming hole cards on his hand, that makes him more desirable opponent in a non cheated live ring game...

Without seeing hole cards, Postle would be blown up with his play style.

A clean phone or a cleaned phone? Probably that phone is long gone. He has an explanation about the nude pictures.

Sandman settled for 1/4 billion; Postle's brief is sloppy.

https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-l...-with-peanuts/

I don't think we will see any action until he serves someone, and we haven't seen any evidence someone has been served.

This is what normal cases look like after service on Sac website:



This is what Postle case looks like:

Sure he did. Any proof?

It’s not a brief, it’s a complaint.

Sure, but you had to make something before that right? I can't just say I can't act now because somebody ruined my name even though I never made any money acting before.

There is 0 chance this guy hasn't cheated on his taxes. Therefore I guarantee his reported income if any is super small. So if his past income is so small, how can he claim damages for future income.

Doesn't make sense to have the last 10 years making $0-$30k playing poker and now all of sudden he can't work and is entitled to millions?

Careful, he might sue you.

This is a really good analysis of a well known defamation case, it highlights to issues that would be required to be proven, and that the likely settlement for nuisance value is obfuscated by reference to the amount sought.

It's not California, but the discussion is pretty well set out that reporting what someone said and adopting it as your own may present different issues. I don't know what defendant was a reporter of what someone else said and what defendants in context spoke of their own opinions or stated matters to be "fact" .....