Mason made Postle the recipient of the tennis scholarship this year to add you to the suit, so probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Mason made Postle the recipient of the tennis scholarship this year to add you to the suit, so probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Brill has Go Fund Me her fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayjamiNope. Druff will be eating these legal fees. Guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
$21,945 raised of $20,000 goal
Dye your hair blonde.
Bill Perkins (Guy)
@bp22
·
5h
Replying to
@Angry_Polak
and
@highhands89
I got the balance DM me
over/under on how long it takes for druff to comment on brill's physical attractiveness?
over/under on whether or not it will be weird and underhanded like 'for her age she.. etc etc'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Bro Im coming to your moms house
Sue me. Im taking her to KFC
Over losesQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Because of the “one action” rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forum Wars
I didn’t listen to radio. Was there any information about how he ended up with a prestigious firm taking the case? I imagine that makes fighting it off a much more expensive proposition. You have to take it serious despite it being ridiculous. Who did druff go with? I’ll listen later, but was curious. Sucks to be attached to this garbage.
Go Fund raise to $50,000.
Sucking all that money out of the poker economy.
Never heard of Mike Postle before this.
Who from now on should be referred to as Mike "Piece of Shit" Postle. He apparently has about $500K in winnings lifetime. His biggest win, a $1500 buy-in back in 2007 for $118K.
According to many top poker pros and a few amateurs, it is very obvious that he was cheating.
Here's an article in last months wired...
The Cheating Scandal That Ripped the Poker World Apart
Mike Postle was on an epic winning streak at a California casino. Veronica Brill thought he had to be playing dirty. Let the chips fall where they may.
https://www.wired.com/story/stones-p...ating-scandal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M90nVsgf4os
From the Wired article, with emphasis added to the last name of Veronica’s co-commentator on the show in which she first alluded to her suspicion that Postle was cheating.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
Do you think Wired intentionally misidentify Justin Kuraitis as “Justin Kelly” to avoid getting sued by Kuraitis, or perhaps Stones Casino? Or that it was just a bonehead reporting error? The latter though seems super unlikely given the significant difference of those names.Quote:
Justin Kelly, one of the livestream's two commentators, gushed over the genius of Postle's eccentric play. “This is what I'm talking about people!” he exclaimed from his broadcast booth across the room. “Postle takes the weirdest lines and gets people to lay down huge hands all the time. But when he has top pair and a straight draw, he is able to just lay down against the nuts. Postle is just like a freak! He's just a freak of nature.”
Kelly's co-commentator, 42-year-old Veronica Brill, did not share his sense of awe. She had been observing Postle up close for a while, both as an opponent at the table and a broadcaster, and she'd come to believe there was a nefarious reason for his success. For months she'd resisted mentioning her suspicions on the livestream, hoping that Stones would handle the matter behind the scenes. But the fold against Cordeiro struck her as so fishy that she could no longer keep quiet. Brill leaned back, gently shook her head, and took a half-step toward calling out God.
“It doesn't make sense,” she said, her soft monotone tinged with mockery. “It's like he knows. It doesn't make sense. It's weird.” Sounding caught off guard by his cohost's skeptical remarks, Kelly continued effusively—“Absolute insanity, guys!”—before managing to change the subject.
Justin Kelly is a different person. The Wired reporter spent 9 months researching the story; not likely to make basic error like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Found the episode on Veronica’s channel. It was Justin Kelly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belly BusterJustin Kelly is a different person. The Wired reporter spent 9 months researching the story; not likely to make basic error like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
https://youtu.be/aHmuAqJ_sVo
Wow! I didn’t realize that!
Looks like Kelly knew Postle was cheating and helped cover for his cheating ways when he was subbing for Kuraitis doing the commentary.
P.S. Sorry for relitigating this. I had forgotten that there was another “Justin” involved in this matter this way.
some of you should actually read this site before posting
How much money did Mike Postle make from these streamed cash games?
How much did he pay the guy feeding him live information about everybody's cards? 20%?
They claim crime doesn't pay but it does.
https://upswingpoker.com/wp-content/...6-1200x796.png
Hey Druff,
I believe I was one of the first (or the 1st) people ever sued on the internet for libel (1998 or 1999)...
No lawyer or judge had a clue what to do because it was all so new...
Ask me anything!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder
Do tell....
Here’s the case: Postle will not be able to prove “actual malice”, his damages are extremely speculative, and Druff’s culpability vis a vis the other defendants (remember, this is a 7th tier poker website) is minimal. On the other hand, proving Postle is harassing Druff, as opposed to being a legitimate defendant, because Druff did publish the allegedly defamatory statements, is problematic as well. Like I said, he’s going to eat those legal fees.
I assume the defense will be coordinated until it is time to throw some under the bus.
Postle's play is completely irrelevant to the suit.
Interestingly, the players think statistics are going to save them.
The joke is - Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Some won and some lost. If they thought there was cheating they should have stopped playing before the game was terminated.
Many suggested that the plaintiffs STFU during the original suit, to no avail.
Let's hope they learned their lesson.
New Wired article.
https://www.wired.com/story/poker-pr...0m-damages/amp
From the article Belly Buster posted:
Wait, does his lawsuit actually say this? So Postle is saying, for example, Todd really believed that Postle DID NOT cheat but claimed Postle cheated anyways...because reasons? Really? That's just objectively untrue. The defendants all believe Postle cheated.Quote:
The crux of Postle’s lawsuit is that his accusers were aware they were lying when they called him a cheater on Twitter, YouTube, or other media outlets. “Not only did defendants, and each of them, have no reasonable basis to believe these statements,” the complaint says, “but they also had no belief in the truth of these statements, and in fact knew the statements to be false.”
How can Postle possibly win this case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
just devils advocating this;
without tangible evidence of wrongdoing, no good faith argument can be made that he cheated.
Agree with all your statements and this is why I believe a jury hearing this would have to surmise that the defendants acted in unison, as a sort of conspiracy, to taint our pure Postle fellow. How is this possible to prove? Yeah, Doug Polk and DNegs getting together with this Motley Poker Crew to shoot down some Sacremento 3rd or 4th tier "pro"...there's no motive to injure his reputation and there's no conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
Case will never get to a jury of course; it's designed to intimidate.
Hope it backfires big, but hard to get blood from a stone (no pun intended).
i believe most of the arguments that were made centered on the statistical improbability of his winrates in these games...Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
just devils advocating this;
without tangible evidence of wrongdoing, no good faith argument can be made that he cheated.
and i know sample size LOL, but you would still be looking at the very tippy tail end of the distribution...
That's the crux of any libel lawsuit. It's not libel to simply lie based on information that you have. People do that all the time. You have to intentionally lie and do so for the purposes of defaming somebody. Even if Postle could somehow prove without question that he was innocent and didn't cheat, that wouldn't be enough for him to win a libel case. He'd also have to prove that the defendants had knowledge of this at the time they were making their accusations. He has no chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
Hate to play internet lawyer here, but they don't need to prove that he cheated. Postle needs to prove that he didn't cheat. And he needs to prove that they knew he didn't cheat and decided to lie anyway for purposes of defaming him.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
just devils advocating this;
without tangible evidence of wrongdoing, no good faith argument can be made that he cheated.
There's a reason it's very hard to win a libel lawsuit. It's a little thing we like to call, the first amendment. The law errs on the side of free speech. It's not enough for somebody to simply print untruths. If that was the case half this forum would be locked up!
Postle has no chance of winning this case. He doesn't even have the resources to make it all that difficult. I guess he's hoping people won't want to fight it and will just settle and he can claim victory that way? But he kinda picked on the wrong group of people. I think he's just delusional (please don't sue me for saying this, Postle!)
well, if indeed he has no chance, then shouldn't the defense motion for a summary judgement of dismissal with prejudice?Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOLHate to play internet lawyer here, but they don't need to prove that he cheated. Postle needs to prove that he didn't cheat. And he needs to prove that they knew he didn't cheat and decided to lie anyway for purposes of defaming him.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
There's a reason it's very hard to win a libel lawsuit. It's a little thing we like to call, the first amendment. The law errs on the side of free speech. It's not enough for somebody to simply print untruths. If that was the case half this forum would be locked up!
Postle has no chance of winning this case. He doesn't even have the resources to make it all that difficult. I guess he's hoping people won't want to fight it and will just settle and he can claim victory that way? But he kinda picked on the wrong group of people. I think he's just delusional (please don't sue me for saying this, Postle!)
Yes, you very smart cookie and I think think this will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogerwell, if indeed he has no chance, then shouldn't the defense motion for a summary judgement of dismissal with prejudice?Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
Summary judgment motions are expensive and rarely granted. They are great way to milk the client and then say: “sorry the judge screwed us”.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRogerwell, if indeed he has no chance, then shouldn't the defense motion for a summary judgement of dismissal with prejudice?Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forum Wars
I'm going with no, a judge is very, very unlikely to do that, since there is no reason for the lawsuit to be thrown out on legal merits, which is why a judge would issue such a dismissal if he/she were gonna do such a thing.
This is essentially correct. Anti-SLAPP laws exist for cases like this. Defendants who do not go the anti-SLAPP route in this matter should consider changing counsel.Quote:
Originally Posted by PLOL
I’m wondering whether Postle filed this lawsuit so that doing so, and all of the drama likely to be generated from it, is included in the documentary that Dave Broome is producing.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shrink
In that article it’s saying that Veronica has form for baseless accusations and that she was the one who got the ball rolling with this conspiracy to slander / libel him and therefore every other noted party is defaming him by association to her.
Kinda weak and where does this 330 mill come from it’s a peculiarly exorbitant and arbitrary number to pluck out of thin air is this guy a Freemason by any chance they love the number 33?
And it’s all well and good a bunch of GTO understanding poker pros analysing his unorthodox play and arguing he can’t sustain a big win rate playing like that but in a court of law that isn’t much of an argument when the judge and jury have little knowledge of poker and can chalk his wins off as a fish on a heater.
What’s in the hat is the main case of evidence but it can’t be proven either stalemate it is.
yes he's a freemasonQuote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
god how we missed you
I'm gonna go with the usual lawyer math here and say they based it on his ability to earn money playing poker x years + damages
I’ve been thinking about this a bit.
I live a pretty lucky life now but that wasn’t the case when I was a kid. Getting away with cheating is one thing, bragging about it and doubling down is another.
There was always a few guys in the neighborhood who did this and they were met with a pipe or knucks.
Seems like a risky play on his part.
Postle has aready won by finding a shyster to file the case.
The defendants have all shut up, they are scrambling for $ to pay for their defense, and Postle is going to be in the movies.
So he is suing you and all of these other people for saying that MIKE POSTLE CHEATED?
This is a very serious allegation, the allegation that Mike Postle cheated.
Remember that truth is a defense to libel or slander, so to defend yourself, you and the other defendants can investigate whether Mike Postle cheated.
Me myself, I don't know whether Mike Postle cheated.
But you can put him on the stand in court to determine whether Mike Postle cheated.
His play at the tables raises questions about whether Mike Postle cheated.
His brother once commented that for his whole life, Mike Postle cheated.
But just because according to his brother, Mike Postle cheated for his whole life, this doesn't mean that Mike Postle cheated this time, so you will need to find some evidence that Mike Postle cheated.
Good luck finding the evidence that Mike Postle cheated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
A confession from him would suffice,,
would not take 2 hrs.
word.
Stupid question.
Since Brill is an atheist and nihilist how do you swear her in so she is subject to criminal prosecution if she does not tell the truth?
It appears that she has never had a pernicious thought she failed to share through Twitter, Facebook, a podcast, Instagram, or the press she is toast.
When this is all done she will have done more to damage the poker economy than anyone since the boom.
It became common knowledge that CA will not punish cheaters, the poker press has to be more careful in their reporting, and the cost of defense is going to drain the economy.
PS, $50,000 is a drop in the bucket for the cost of her defense. There are hundreds of hours of video, tweets, interviews, and podcasts that will have to reviewed at $150 to $500 an hour.
When did Brill say that she was a nihilist?Quote:
Originally Posted by turdzilla
But to address the meat of your question...
Contrary to what religious conservatives claim, the United States of America is NOT a country based on a belief in God. Hence, the courts allows for those who don’t want to recognize “God” as the ultimate moral authority when being sworn in to give an “affirmation” that they won’t lie under oath.
Todd Witteles
The Poker Fraud Alert radio station and website owner makes the list by virtue of stating:
“The FACTS are that Mike clearly cheated” and “Mike is cheating…” as well as “…so clearly has an accomplice communicating with him.”
Witteles, who goes by the pseudonym Dan Druff on his PFA site, has already vowed to fight the lawsuit, describing it as “frivolous.”