By Haley Hintze
posted within the past 24 hours, a second continuation for the lawyer-less Postle
https://www.pokertube.com/article/mi...ion-libel-case

^^^ Cool article, thanks for posting

Depends on how you define 'proof'. To understand how you define it, tell us: were Potripper and NioNio proven to have cheated?

Leave my cousin out of this

saw with my own eyes a settlement check. it was for under $500

Pro per will always get benefit of doubt before a hammer comes down (especially a hammer that is not ruled on by merits but because doesn't have attorney).

The anti-slapp is a massive hammer that most pro pers cannot navigate.

The Anti-Slapp will be brutal defeat for Postle. It ends the lawsuit pre litigation and forces Postle to pay attorney fees.

Keeps the judge clear of potential appeals for granting a little more time.

Of course we all know Postle dug this mess himself by probably lying to his attorneys before getting them to file a pathetic losing anti free speech lawsuit.

One day you go and see a magic show. Next day can you prove it wasn't magic? Maybe it was real magic.

"Brill attorney Marc Randazza"

Really?

Alex Jones' former attorney?

Huff Post article on Randazza

Not sure what your point is. Attorneys represent all kinds of clients that society holds in contempt. Randazza is one of the best known, most formidable attorneys in the US and he also lives in Vegas. I'd hire him in a second.

Murum Aries Attigit

There's a difference a lawyer who represents scumbags, and a lawyer who is a scumbag.

They guy has been sanctioned by THREE different state bars. Do you how hard that is to pull off, in a profession that does such an incredibly shitty job of policing itself?

I mean, I'm rooting for Brill, so I guess I have to root for him too, but it does kinda suck.

If the case getting dropped was the last you've heard, then the highlights since then have come from Postle's defamation lawsuit. This will catch you up a bit:

Inside Mike Postle’s $330million Defamation Conspiracy Lawsuit: Who He Is Suing And Why (Oct. 2020)
https://www.pokertube.com/article/in...-suing-and-why

Attorneys File To Be Removed as Counsel in Mike Postle Lawsuit
https://www.pokernewsdaily.com/attor...lawsuit-34146/

...and if you're wondering what has come of that case, well, nothing. It has been continued until April, according to the coverage over the weekend:
https://www.pokernewsdaily.com/mike-...o-april-34363/

There were some smaller skirmishes along the way. For example, Justin Kuraitis put out this statement, which got picked apart by those who have closely examined the saga.

Not many lawyers are admitted to more than one state bar and all the sanctions were for the same incident, I believe, so it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be. I haven't read the arbiter's report but I've read on several legal blogs that it was biased and one-sided. That's how it goes sometimes. Either way, Randazza has done a ton of important free speech work over the years, much of it pro bono, and his firm specializes in legal issues related to gaming, Anti-SLAAP, and free speech, so he is obviously a good choice for Brill in dealing with this Postle nonsense.

Yep. Just one unfortunate incident in an otherwise-stellar legal career, then, eh? Sure.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-...b08aaf7a86b9e4

Anything credible or just a PuffPost link?

So you didn't respond to anything I said and then linked to the huffington post, then, eh? LOL

What part should I have responded to? The part where you admit you haven't even read the arbiter's decision, but have decided, based on "what you've heard" that it must be biased? Or the part where you claim he's also done all these other wonderful things, with nothing to back up those claims?

Since I'm sure that you did not intend your post to simply be an ad hominem attack, I'll say this: if you have any problem with any of the allegations made in that article, I'm happy to discuss: What parts did you take issue with?

No, not an attack, simple question. Anything from a credible source? PuffPost, Vox, Buzzfeed, Star, NationalEnquirer are all trash. Do you have any links from something credible or just some opinion piece in a high biased and juvenile blog?

Here, I'll break it down for you since you don't seem very bright:

"Not many lawyers are admitted to more than one state bar and all the sanctions were for the same incident, I believe, so it's not as big a deal as you're making it out to be."

---this is was offered to counter your statement about the purported rarity of Randazza's censure. 1) It's uncommon for three states to sanction an attorney in part because very few attorneys are admitted to the bar in three states 2) These were not three separate incidents, but one. Anyone reading your statement could easily assume that it was three separate incidents that each state dealt with individually.

"I haven't read the arbiter's report but I've read on several legal blogs that it was biased and one-sided. That's how it goes sometimes."

1) I follow a lot of free speech and legal blogs, and this topic was widely discussed by lawyers and professors, not by partisan political hacks. I trust those blogs more than I do some nobody writing for Huffington Post or some NVG dweeb on twoplustwo

"Either way, Randazza has done a ton of important free speech work over the years, much of it pro bono, and his firm specializes in legal issues related to gaming, Anti-SLAAP, and free speech, so he is obviously a good choice for Brill in dealing with this Postle nonsense."

1) this is an ARGUMENT I am putting forth for thinking that Randazza is a good choice as an attorney in this case, EVEN IF every negative thing said about him is 100% correct. Arguments require responses to refute them. You could have responded substantively but instead you linked to Huffington Post. I hth

I see.

I love when community college students try to use the terms they once heard in their intro to critical thinking courses.

Ad hominem when used to mean a fallacy of argumentation refers to avoiding your opponent's arguments and focusing instead on the arguer. To the extent that dude has made ANY arguments whatsoever, I have dealt with them. He also happens to not be very bright, as evidenced by his remarks in this thread. Pointing that out is not an ad hominem fallacy, hth

"That's Latin, darlin' Evidently, Mr. Odysseus is an educated man...."

I do not know what damages Mr. Postle may plead as to his pre-Stones reputation. The court may rely on another hoary latin bromide to dismisss his action in any event, de minimis non curat lex.

I sure am. Thanks for noticing.

I'm just waiting for the documentary. Assuming it's still going to happen.

Yeah postle did tell us it was going to change EVERYTHING