That's now. I was referring to then.

+1.

And when you take a case on a contingency fee, you certainly care about the rights and wrongs of the claim (and, of course, the free publicity).

My understanding is that the plantiff's lawyer was able to examine the evidence and that there was no evidence of guilt on the part of Stones, or Postle's supposed co-conspirator, or presumably Postle himself. Which leads me to being convinced the prevailing theories are mistaken (cheating by using wifi or texts or a bone speaker in his ear).

I was never convinced he should be convicted of a crime or lose a lawsuit. Now that he's suing, I'm nearly certain he's innocent.

And yet. Those damn hands.

So, what are the alternate theories? If we can't accept for ourselves that the win rate was achievable through legitimate play, how can we wrap up the little mystery we have?

I agree, but the problem is he appears to have lawyers that claim to be defamation lawyers, but on closer inspection show no evidence to support that claim. If they are inexperienced in this area, they may well be giving him honest - but bad - advice on the case and the likelihood of his success.

My initial feeling is he would lose by bringing the case back into the public arena, but I have reversed that view, as a result of the legal discussions on this forum about the US legal approach. So if the onus is on the defendants to show he cheated and that their claims he was a cheater are therefore justified, he seems in a strong position, as there is only circumstantial evidence of unbelievably high win rates, which he will no doubt explain away as variance.

I said very early on he was bringing this action to gag people, and it has worked perfectly in that goal. The debate could continue if people qualified their statements with "alleged cheater" Mike Postle, and then aired their concerns, but his legal action has meant people aren't even prepared to do that.

In poker terms, he is bluffing with his action against his accusers in saying they are unfair to him, as I have no doubt he cheated, and that people are right to accuse him of that. But he knows they can't prove it. Unfortunately he has actually played his dishonest hand very well.

fyp

What is that understanding based off of? Stones got a statement implying there was no evidence of cheating as part of agreeing to pay $40K. Does that mean that ver Standig really found no evidence?

His statement said there was no concern about Stones, or JFK, but he did not make the same comment about Postle. So for all we know there may be evidence against him, but the fact so many in that case decided to end it there suggests they don't feel it is that strong, and that there may be a personal element in those few not closing their action as they knew Postle well, ie Veronica, lady with Duck in her name, and Jake a Stones commentator.

If the defamation defendants are served and the case goes to discovery etc., they probably will find plenty of evidence. Not sure about against Stones though, other than not supervising JFK properly. Stones was sued because they had the $s.

For the third time: As a student of poker, in the spring and summer of 2019, I was aware of Mike Postle and his wild, wildly successful style of play, from the Stones stream. Ky Lee, one of the coaches at CrushLivePoker.com had prepared a training video about playing against a maniac focusing on Postle's play from the Stones livestreams. In discussions of Stones and their livestreams, Postle's playing style and success was a common feature.

It's a small pond, to be sure, but Postle had a public reputation as being a big frog in it. You could watch him on the Internet, and I did.

Thank you. Now I have a better idea how famous he was. How many views did those vids get back in the day? Thumbs? Was it a few dozen, for a few thousand, or 40,000? Unless it was the last, I doubt he's a public figure for the purposes of libel at the time. But I really have no idea how the courts will address this question. What question? "Is a big fish in a small pond, a public figure, for the purposes of libel?"

I imagine a lawyer could answer this pretty quick -- with a cite for us to read too.

I'm not so sure we can take it as a given that Postle will "win" and "get away" with his alleged cheating. This lawsuit, if it actually proceeds, is going to get very expensive for Mr. Postle and his legal team. Before Postle's lawsuit was filed, I listened to Eric Bensamochan, the lawyer representing defendant Todd Witteles, on a radio interview. Todd, apparently anticipating the possibility that he might be sued, asked Mr. Bensamochan what was likely to happen if Postle did, in fact, file a suit?

He might have been bluffing, but attorney Bensamochan indicated that he would make Postle's life a living hell by burying him in demands for documentation, endless motions, discovery, depositions, court appearances, et cetera ... To survive a [legal] onslaught like that requires a lot of money as attorneys don't work for free. The defendants, especially Veronica Brill, are getting help and support from deep pocket heroes like Bill Perkins, so their ability to weather the storm and outlast Postle is probably greater.

At some point, if Postle actually pushes this, one side (or the other) is going to run out of patience - and money. I suppose the "Big Question" is: Who comes to their senses first? I have a feeling the lawsuit will be dropped (and all this will be over with) by this time next year, but that is just my non-lawyerly opinion.

This is interesting:

Professor Witkin observes, “[t]he charge of commission of some kind of crime is obviously libel per se.” 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 542, p. 795.

...\\1. Slander Per Se.



In the statutory definition provided in Civ. Code § 46, the first four classes of statements are slanderous per se. See Clay v. Lagiss (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 441, 448 [charge of theft is slander per se]; Cunningham v. Simpson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 301, 307 [charge of possession of “hot” title to car was slander per se].

2. Injury to Business or Professional Reputation.


Professor Witkin states that:

A general charge of dishonesty or immorality not amounting to a charge of crime, and not tending directly to injure the plaintiff in any business, profession, office, or occupation, is not actionable per se, and plaintiff must prove special damage in order to recover. But an attack on the honesty of an employee or business person endangers his or her position, and is actionable per se. Thus, a statement that a jeweler was a “crook” and “got away” with a ring entrusted to him reflected on his integrity as a bailee, and directly injured him in his business and constituted slander per se. (Williams v. Seiglitz (1921) 186 C[al]. 767, 772….)

And Postle knows all of this. Right? So. Does. He. Sue. If. He's. Guilty of some kind of wrongdoing? Read. What. You. Wrote.

This thread has had two very distinct phases, the first was the initial poker side, where players were outraged. And now the legal phase, where his actions are looked at through a legal prism, which is very different to a poker prism.

The big difference between the two phases is the amount of evidence needed to reach a decision. Those involved in the first phase had little understanding of the legal phase, and it could also be said their legal advice also lacked that understanding, as shown by that embarrassing climbdown when they said there was no evidence against several of the parties they had accused. So a big thank you to all the legal experts here explaining the complexities of the law around such a case as this.

Postle had access to the streaming equipment from the time he was at Stones working on a programme he had pitched to the casino. It may be that he was a one man operation on that, rigging up a stream in a way that only he knew, and may have removed once suspicions were raised against him, which is why he is so confident he can't be found guilty of cheating if he had removed the evidence, even though his streamed results and behaviour in them make any other conclusion impossible.

I love footnotes:

*As a matter of law, in cases involving public figures or matters of public concern, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity in a defamation action. Nizam-Aldine v. City of Oakland, 47 Cal. App. 4th 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). In cases involving matters of purely private concern, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant. Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 646 & n.5 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). A reader further points out that, even when the burden is technically on the plaintiff to prove falsity, the plaintiff can easily shift the burden to the defendant simply by testifying that the statements at issue are false.

Postle is going to be counting the Benjamins! (just my opinion, 'natch)

He just needs to testify? Can the defense not cross examine him and present evidence for truth?

He just needs to testify to SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Read. It means they can cross examine and present evidence, BUT the burden of proof is automatically now on the plantiff when he testifies. If my source is correct ...


https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/artic...tion.%E2%80%9D

Now keep in mind, if there was no evidence before, why would there be evidence now? The stat's stuff is fun but will it satisfy a jury/judge the burden of proof (that they were telling the truth?), has been met?

I don't think the statement is agreed to and signed if there was any evidence vs. any party.

Maybe big pockets settle this?

No problem, the defendants can show the claims are true. Plus Postle would be destroyed in cross examination / interrogatories.

Apologies if this was previously discussed.
The accusations against Postle were that he cheated on the Stones livestream.
I'm interested to know how damages will be calculated in a defamation suit given the following:

1. Presumably Postle's tax records would be reviewed to calculate damages to future expected earnings (That would be fun to see). Are gambling winnings eligible for inclusion in calculating future income?

2. Postle said in the Matusow interview that he lost tens of thousands of dollars before the show went live. According to him, he might even be a net loser.

3. The Stones livestream was shutdown and Postle is banned from Stones and the decision was not based on Postle being a cheater (right Stones?), so can we discount any earnings at Stones from future income since that avenue is not available to him?

If I were trying to take legal action against Postle, I would focus on establishing his dishonest character, and how cheating at poker is typical of his duplicity. His brother says how Postle would cheat him at games as a boy. There is the suggestion that he has cheated the taxman by not declaring his taxable poker winnings. There is his interview with Matusow where he makes wild, patently false statements about his poker successes. He is a thoroughly dishonest character, so cheating at Stones is just the latest example of his false nature.

The card graphics changed to cover up Postle's unbelievable play, and those card graphics were placed by Stones employee Taylor, yet Taylor seems to be getting overlooked.Given that Postle loves to play cat and mouse with his accusers, and is actually playing his hand quite well at the moment, attention should be given to Taylor.

As others say, it may well end up a decision made on who has the deepest pockets, as one of those Postle is attacking is ESPN, and one man taking on an organisation like that, let alone all the other wealthy and well connected people he accuses, is remarkable. The first case ended with an embarrassing climb down and non disclosure agreement by those settling. The sheer volume of legal costs compared to the comparatively small damages that could be won make this a case where a quiet mutual dropping of the action would be best all round, as Postle is the lowest form of poker life, but even so he is not worth risking potential bankruptcy over, and from his point of view he has a moral victory that nothing has ever been proven against him.

It is all so fascinating, as there is not a single reputable figure who has come out in support of him, and his legal team seem to have minimal visible credentials in defamation cases, or understanding poker, whereas the wide range of people he has attacked have a massive support and knowledge network. I estimate it 90% likely he would win a case, just because those attacking him were so swayed by emotion they overlooked the need to get evidence to support their accusations.

His testimony is the totality of his direct and cross examination. Whether or not he shifts the burden to the defense depends on his credibility and whether his testimony is believable. Merely claiming he didn't cheat on direct examination won't be viewed in a vacuum.

Here is an over simplified example:

Direct Examination:

Plaintiff's Counsel: Why did you file this lawsuit?
Plaintiff: I was falsely accused of cheating. I never cheated.

Cross Examination:

Defendant's Counsel: Yes or no, do a majority of your opponents now think you're a cheater?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Defendant's Counsel: Yes or no, didn't you once admit to cheating at cards?
Plaintiff: Yes.

You're on the jury. Did plaintiff prove he wasn't a cheater? Yes, no, or you're not sure?

Plaintiff may have cheated at another occasion at another time not part of the current lawsuit and when he was a teenager. But he claimed he never cheated under direct examination and had to admit both that he has a reputation of being a cheater and that he once admitted to being a cheater. He may be innocent now, but his credibility has been seriously put in doubt. Once a cheater always a cheater? Don't his peers know him best? Doesn't the Plaintiff have a motive to lie now if guilty?

As an aside. With respect to the Postle case, in one of the videos, Postle's brother told a story of how Postle rigged a gambling game and cheated his friends or others when they were kids. This can be used to attack his credibility if he claims innocence of being a cheater. Sometimes a seemingly innocent statement or anecdote can open the flood gates.

Another aside. Notice how the first question defendant's counsel asked is a double edged sword. An answer of yes can be used to hurt plaintiff's credibility. An answer of no can be used to mitigate damages. Damn lawyers, lol.

Which is funny because I did not see The King of Kong until after I started following poker (in fact, it was recommended to me by a fellow PokerRoad regular), and my immediate thought when I saw him was "is this guy imitating Chris Ferguson??"

An answer of LAWYER OBJECTS MY CLIENT DOES NOT HAVE ESP AWAY FROM THE POKER TABLE. Otherwise you're right, great question. LOL

Generally speaking, and I am not a California lawyer, you might want to look at the linked explanation of burden of proof and burden of persuasion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Like I said, it was an oversimplification. Questions could have been asked on direct examination that established that the poker community or his opponents now think him a cheat, and that warrants awarding the plaintiff damages. If his lawyers want to argue that the plaintiff has no way of knowing what his opponent's think (the point of the objection you raised), then they should avoid suggesting the opposite on direct. Otherwise they have opened the door for the defense to go there.

In the Postle case, they basically claim he was hurt financially because he now has a reputation as a cheater. So they have to go there to win on that point. If they has just filed slander per se and libel per se, maybe they could have avoided whether or not Postle knows what his opponents think.

The plaintiff presents his case first. So the defense will know what they're claiming, what evidence they have, how effective they were in their presentation, etc., and will adjust accordingly. Although most of this will be hashed out in the discovery phase.