In my latest post I didn't claim he was innocent. I said he was not guilty.

Innocent or not, providing one's phone to the police (or even "third parties") would be extremely foolish and I can't imagine any lawyer would recommend that, especially in an open and shut case like this where he is clearly not guilty under California law and there won't even be a trial.

Not doing **** is exactly why he is now liable for other people’s attorney fees.

No, he's liable for attorney fees because he chose to sue when he should have just moved on with his life.

No, he is liable for attorney fees because after he decided to sue and was dropped by his attorneys, he didn’t do ****. The reason his attorneys dropped him was he did not do ****. The reason he represented himself at the oral argument and lost was he did not do ****.

Sounds like you are doing a lot of speculation, and your story does not line up with what Postle himself stated. His attorney had to step back from his job as an attorney in order to handle the estate of his father who had just passed. Then, the lady from the Honor Network that was helping Postle with the case had a heart attack.

You keep saying he didn't do **** but I'd say he did too much ****. He thought just because he was not guilty of any crime that this would be a slam dunk defamation case but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Filing the lawsuit was a mistake, regardless of whether it had merit or not.

Srsly? So if you had just put on one of the greatest displays of no limit poker ever recorded and all these haters tried to tarnish your reputation with claims of cheating you're telling me you would just turn the other cheek? Rly?

So when his first attorneys in the defamation lawsuit say he was not communicating with them, they were lying and had to drop him to work on a fathers estate?

Your beliefs seem to center on Postles honesty and perhaps are misplaced.

Postle owes attorney fees cause he filed a lawsuit that is strongly in violation of freedom of speech and the US and California Constitutions ..... a law created so people can't file lawsuits to stop other people from exercising legitimate free speech.... a law created to make people pay attorney fees for filing such egregiously illegal lawsuits.

This too as well.... when Postle voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit (LOL) cause he didn't have an attorney, the court deemed it an admission that his defamation lawsuit was without merit, so he lost automatically on Wittles anti-SLAPP motion to strike.

Mike Postle if you are reading this, you should consider legal against your defamation attorneys for legal malpractice.... for filing such a fraudulent and illegal lawsuit on your behalf..... unless of course you may have misrepresented to them your innocence!?!?!

Its clear he lacks self awareness of the situations he puts himself in.

If he would have only cheated 25-50% of the time he would have still crushed but the chances are he would never have been caught as there would have been numerous hands where he is betting into the nuts and lots of other normal looking stuff.

But no.... lets do full out God mode in every session, knowing that all the sessions are being streamed on the internet and recorded.

This, and you're being kind.

where did the judge say this? or is this your interpretation of the judge's action, which happened for reasons you really don't know anything about?

Isn't that always the question, in hindsight? How could they be so greedy? I think they never believe it's going to last very long, so they milk it as quickly as they can which (ironically) is what makes it end.

You aren't suggesting that Postle may be due some process? Can't they just grab his ****? What kind of country is this?

I believe it’s enforceable

Why are you trying to be so difficult? Literally the law itself says this:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...16&lawCode=CCP

Fly too close to the sun and you will perish in a fiery death. More than a myth evidently.

Legal Malpractice?

It would be interesting for a writer (and/or a filmmaker) who specializes in examining the decision making process of prominent (and not so prominent) law firms who agree to take on (and then dump) clients like MP. I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in when the prospect of representing Mr. Postle was first broached to the senior partners of that Beverly Hills "entertainment" law firm. The discussion might have gone something like this ...

Junior Partner (or moron who pitched this idea to Senior Partners): "This is a gold mine! Scott van Pelt went live on the air at ESPN in effect declaring that Mr. Postle is a cheater. That's textbook defamation - and ESPN is part of a huge media and entertainment operation. We'll milk this cow for hundreds of millions!!"

Senior Partners: "Very good work, [junior partner] - sign him up!"

After some time passes and reality begins sinking in, the senior partners have another meeting with the junior partner - or whoever brought this case to their attention. That meeting goes something like this ...

Senior Partners: "You idiot! You pitch a client like Postle to us without even bothering to check into the facts and the specifics of what he's claiming!? ESPN is going to bury us in motions, document demands, depositions, and paperwork that will drag on for years - not to mention the attorneys for all the other potential defendants who will do the same. Do you realize how much representing a client like Mike Postle is going to cost us!!??

Junior Partner: "Well sir, I ... um ..."

Senior Partner: "Shut up. I'm tired of listening to you and your harebrained client. You go talk to your "client" and tell him we're getting out - and don't ever pitch a client like this to us again if you plan to continue practicing with this law firm!"

With the usual proviso that IANAL, it appears that serious legal malpractice was committed by the law firm that agreed to represent MP in the first place. MP must have thought pulling the wool over the eyes of a bunch of clueless inept lawyers would be just as easy as swindling a group of clueless poker players.

I assume he lied to them and that clears them of wrong doing. Lawyers?

Outoftime can correct me on this, but the DNA of the victim on the boat could be either direct or circumstantial evidence, depending on what you're trying to prove.

If you're trying to prove that the victim was on the boat at some point, the presence is DNA is direct evidence.

If you're trying to prove that boat owner killed the victim, then the DNA is circumstantial.

Again, OOT4444 (or anyone else with legal expertise), please tell me if I have that bassackwards, as it's quite possible that I do.

EDIT: it seems there is a misconception that direct evidence is just a synonym for "stronger" evidence, but that's not necessarily the case. This has been discussed in this thread already. e.g. suppose there was video surveillance of Postle walking into the control room at a time the Stones Live stream was known to be going, then additional footage of his walking out and returning to the table five minutes later, that would be circumstantial evidence that he was cheating – even though it would be damning as hell. On the other hand, if some person were to come forward and say "I spoke with Mike Postle back in November of 2019 and he admitted to me that he cheated," that would be direct evidence but it would also be pretty tough to give it any reliability.

I think your comment is pretty much right, based on my understanding. I am not criminal attorney, but with your specific fact example above I agree.

I think the best answer to your question is the jury instruction that is read to jurors and printed for them, highlighted below. https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/200/223/

It doesn't matter, both are the same value! "Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other."

Yea. The attorneys have to make a legal error that hurt their client and there must be actual damages. I think if the attorneys dismissed the case before the hearing (admitting the lawsuit had no merit and automatic attorney fees) that would be legal malpractice. But Mike did not as a pro per without an attorney.

I think if Mike lied to his attorneys, that would be enough to stop a legal malpractice case. Legal malpractice cases are hard to win.

ROTFLMAO

You have ZERO understanding of the US (or Cali) Constitution. Granted; it's 2+2 NVG so it's a low bar for posting.

The US Constitution and it''s attendant document "the Bill of Rights" are there to RESTRICT GOVERNMENT(s).

Assuming…?

that's always the mark of a thoughtful intelligent truth-seeker. /sarc

Or maybe they just didn't want to spend many hours in what would be a fruitless quest that would end in little to no fees being paid?

And that's not to say he was not wronged. WINNING in court is a crapshoot these days.

WRONG. You're just saying this so you can attack someone you dislike.

Attorney's don't "dismiss" cases, they may drop clients, or choose to NOT persue cases; but only Judges can dismiss cases.

Making up your own mind, then creating "facts" to prove it. Another 2+2 NVG "thought leader" speaks! /sarc