Desertrunner, if Druff loses, will you help him storm the courthouse to overturn the verdict?Quote:
Originally Posted by desertrunner
Desertrunner, if Druff loses, will you help him storm the courthouse to overturn the verdict?Quote:
Originally Posted by desertrunner
Florida Bar discipline against Randazza, over the same issue: https://www.bullsource.com/2020/11/1...ional-conduct/
The above link gives some more details. It's over a porn case, lol.
Also suspended in federal court in the district of Nevada in October 2019, according to another thing I read. Same matter. Suspension may be lifted by now.
None of this is a huge deal, and none of it means he can't defend Veronica properly. As I said before, he did a good job with the VitalVegas case, and that was fairly recently. Just wanted to note it, because it's somewhat relevant.
Wow... this Randazza stuff actually sounds fairly serious.
I finally understand it all. Here's a very detailed HuffPo article about it: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alex-...4?guccounter=1
While I believe the information in the article, I also found it somewhat annoying, as the author couldn't keep his left wing politics out of the piece. Politics didn't belong in this article -- whether left or right. While the author seems to do a great job presenting all the details, he can't help himself with the political soapboxing.
Still worth a read if you're interested. Fascinating stuff, to be honest.
Druff, on radio you read this tweet and noted that you didn't know what "breaks" are. I recently learned about these things. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (again, I'm no expert) but "breaks" are a form of gambling, typically done on Facebook. A bunch of my friends are addicted to them. Here's how they work - sports memorabilia dealers set up a "Jersey Breaks" group on Facebook. Typically, the items are signed jerseys. Each signed jersey would sell for $400-$1000 but most people don't want to shell out that kind of cash. So they can enter a draw (for a fee) with a small number of people to win the jersey. The dealer will post on the Facebook site that there will be a draw when a certain number of people enter by paying the fee. Then on live video, the dealer does the draw and the winner is sent the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It probably works a bit different depending on the dealer and the items but I'll give an example of what I observed for a "Hockey Breaks" site: The dealer has a bunch of unopened boxes containing various signed hockey jerseys. He doesn't know which jersey is in which box but he has a list of the jerseys he has on hand (which he uses to advertise on the facebook group - e.g., "The signed Crosby jersey is still available!"). Some of them are rare and desirable called "Headliners" (e.g., signed Connor McDavid) and some of them are "Fillers" (e.g., signed jersey from a middling player). The dealer posts on his facebook group that there will be a draw when 5 people send him $80 each. Once 5 people transfer him $80 (in Canada we use Interac e-transfer), the draw begins. Live on camera the dealer will first randomly draw one of the boxes containing a jersey. In the one I saw, he filmed his computer monitor with a simple randomizer wheel (e.g., https://wheelofnames.com/ ) to first draw a number which corresponds to one of the unopened boxes. Let's say it lands on #5 so he takes box #5 and opens it on camera. He shows the jersey on the live feed. Now he randomly selects the winner of the jersey by putting the 5 entrants' names in the randomizer and spins again. Whoever it lands on wins the jersey. It kind of sounds like a scam but it is legit - he mails the winner their jersey promptly. They will hold one or two of these draws each day until the collection of boxes have all been won. Then they get a new collection of boxes and start again. In a way it's kind of like Deal or No Deal because if there are a bunch of headliners left near the end, more people will want to enter the draw and the dealer can jack up the price of entry. However, if all the headliners are claimed early, then few people will want to enter and the dealer will have to lower the entry fee.
Now, who knows how he gets each jersey and how much he's paying for each one. I have to imagine that it's not a simple matter of "I could either sell this jersey outright for $400 or I could get 5 people to pay $80 and there's no difference to my bottom line." I have no doubt that the dealers can sell more items and get more profit by piecing out entry fees than selling each item for a high amount. Especially when you factor in the fillers which nobody is going to pay a high amount for. Meanwhile, the people winning these things often want to turn around and sell them as soon as they win them to turn their own "profit."
To make a long story short, "breaks" appear to be a degen form of negative EV gambling. So it's not surprising that Postle would get into that kind of thing.
Veronica's anti-SLAPP was filed and appeared in the system today.
As it's now a matter of public record, I will post it here shortly.
May or may not make a difference, but the Declarations attached to the Randazza Motion appear to be technically deficient because they are not signed under penalty of perjury "under the laws of the State of California" and/or do not state the place (location) of the signing
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP
PART 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [1855 - 2107] ( Heading of Part 4 amended by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )
TITLE 3. OF THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE [1985 - 2015.6] ( Title 3 enacted 1872. )
CHAPTER 3. Manner of Production [2002 - 2015.6] ( Chapter 3 enacted 1872. )
ARTICLE 2. Affidavits [2009 - 2015.6] ( Article 2 enacted 1872. )
2015.5.
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:
(a) If executed within this state:
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
(Date and Place)
(Signature)
(b) If executed at any place, within or without this state:
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct”:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
(Date)
(Signature)
These “breaks” sound like a raffle, which are usually illegal unless run by a non-profit organization, e.g. a church raffle. Any real lawyers here care to comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by The ShrinkDruff, on radio you read this tweet and noted that you didn't know what "breaks" are. I recently learned about these things. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong (again, I'm no expert) but "breaks" are a form of gambling, typically done on Facebook. A bunch of my friends are addicted to them. Here's how they work - sports memorabilia dealers set up a "Jersey Breaks" group on Facebook. Typically, the items are signed jerseys. Each signed jersey would sell for $400-$1000 but most people don't want to shell out that kind of cash. So they can enter a draw (for a fee) with a small number of people to win the jersey. The dealer will post on the Facebook site that there will be a draw when a certain number of people enter by paying the fee. Then on live video, the dealer does the draw and the winner is sent the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It probably works a bit different depending on the dealer and the items but I'll give an example of what I observed for a "Hockey Breaks" site: The dealer has a bunch of unopened boxes containing various signed hockey jerseys. He doesn't know which jersey is in which box but he has a list of the jerseys he has on hand (which he uses to advertise on the facebook group - e.g., "The signed Crosby jersey is still available!"). Some of them are rare and desirable called "Headliners" (e.g., signed Connor McDavid) and some of them are "Fillers" (e.g., signed jersey from a middling player). The dealer posts on his facebook group that there will be a draw when 5 people send him $80 each. Once 5 people transfer him $80 (in Canada we use Interac e-transfer), the draw begins. Live on camera the dealer will first randomly draw one of the boxes containing a jersey. In the one I saw, he filmed his computer monitor with a simple randomizer wheel (e.g., https://wheelofnames.com/ ) to first draw a number which corresponds to one of the unopened boxes. Let's say it lands on #5 so he takes box #5 and opens it on camera. He shows the jersey on the live feed. Now he randomly selects the winner of the jersey by putting the 5 entrants' names in the randomizer and spins again. Whoever it lands on wins the jersey. It kind of sounds like a scam but it is legit - he mails the winner their jersey promptly. They will hold one or two of these draws each day until the collection of boxes have all been won. Then they get a new collection of boxes and start again. In a way it's kind of like Deal or No Deal because if there are a bunch of headliners left near the end, more people will want to enter the draw and the dealer can jack up the price of entry. However, if all the headliners are claimed early, then few people will want to enter and the dealer will have to lower the entry fee.
Now, who knows how he gets each jersey and how much he's paying for each one. I have to imagine that it's not a simple matter of "I could either sell this jersey outright for $400 or I could get 5 people to pay $80 and there's no difference to my bottom line." I have no doubt that the dealers can sell more items and get more profit by piecing out entry fees than selling each item for a high amount. Especially when you factor in the fillers which nobody is going to pay a high amount for. Meanwhile, the people winning these things often want to turn around and sell them as soon as they win them to turn their own "profit."
To make a long story short, "breaks" appear to be a degen form of negative EV gambling. So it's not surprising that Postle would get into that kind of thing.
Another update:
Prior to quitting, Postle's attorneys filed a motion to delay the anti-SLAPP hearing for the case against me. Today that motion was granted. We did not oppose it, for reasons I won't get into.
The new date is March 18. Veronica's anti-SLAPP motion is facing the same motion for delay. My attorney Eric Bensamochan told me that it's likely that will also be granted, and there's a good chance it will be set for the same March 18th date.
Please make a note of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...ns-against-him
Seems like Postle might be a "public person" which under slander/libel law in most states makes them harder to slander/libel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm sure your legal folks are on this but wanted to throw it out there. From what I read, it can be broadly applied, and simply going on a live stream may qualify him for it.
Yes. Our anti-SLAPP filing asserts that Postle is a "limited purpose public figure" when it comes to poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by SidewinderSeems like Postle might be a "public person" which under slander/libel law in most states makes them harder to slander/libel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm sure your legal folks are on this but wanted to throw it out there. From what I read, it can be broadly applied, and simply going on a live stream may qualify him for it.
If you are a public figure, there is a much higher standard for defamation, known as "actual malice". This requires that the defendant had to KNOW their statement was false when they said/wrote it. The statement being false isn't enough, in such a case.
Of course, I assert that all statements I made about him were true anyway, but that becomes a moot point when he's a public figure, as he'd have to prove that I intentionally made false statements about him, which clearly isn't the case. I have always been honest and straightforward about my beliefs about Mr. Postle, and I based it upon my good-faith analysis of the information available, combined with my two decades of experience playing poker professionally.
There are many reasons Mike Postle is a limited purpose public figure when it comes to poker.
You can read our anti-SLAPP (I liked it in the thread) for more details. Veronica's anti-SLAPP is similar, and basically asserts the same thing.
The collective net worth of the people he sued is plenty. Unless his lawyers are on a contingency (a % of win) I don't get how he can pay the legal costs of fighting very good lawyers and the certain avalanche of billable hours coming his attorney's way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes. Our anti-SLAPP filing asserts that Postle is a "limited purpose public figure" when it comes to poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidewinder
If you are a public figure, there is a much higher standard for defamation, known as "actual malice". This requires that the defendant had to KNOW your statement was false when they said/wrote it. The statement being false isn't enough, in such a case.
Of course, I assert that all statements I made about him were true anyway, but that becomes a moot point when he's a public figure, as he'd have to prove that I intentionally made false statements about him, which clearly isn't the case. I have always been honest and straightforward about my beliefs about Mr. Postle, and I based it upon my good-faith analysis of the information available, combined with my two decades of experience playing poker professionally.
There are many reasons Mike Postle is a limited purpose public figure when it comes to poker.
You can read out anti-SLAPP (I liked it in the thread) for more details. Veronica's anti-SLAPP is similar, and basically asserts the same thing.
The 18th should be a lucky day for you Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
BUMP
Postle has filed a motion to delay the anti-SLAPP hearings further. He does not have an attorney yet, though oddly we received a copy of the motion through a Sacramento-based attorney. He's still listed as representing himself, though.
https://www.legaluspokersites.com/ne...y-quits/24723/
We responded to Postle's ridiculous motion to continue the Anti-SLAPP hearing for the second time.
His motion: https://pokerfraudalert.com/Postle-c...nce-second.pdf
Our answer: https://pokerfraudalert.com/response...nce-second.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
On His motion: Look at the top of the Proof of service (the last page) it says “JACKSON V. COLONIAL ENERGY LLC...et al”. Then it has a Court listing and Case number on the 2 lines below that. It looks like the Proof of service form was copied from another case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerveza FriaQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
On His motion: Look at the top of the Proof of service (the last page) it says “JACKSON V. COLONIAL ENERGY LLC...et al”. Then it has a Court listing and Case number on the 2 lines below that. It looks like the Proof of service form was copied from another case.
Yeah that definitely looks pretty fucked up to me
He also calls me Veronica Brill on the first page.
"To defendant Veronica Brill, and her attorney(s) Eric Bensamochan..."
I realize we are both defendants in this case, but I don't think I look very much like Veronica.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuO7Q5uU...jpg&name=small
cut and paste errors from whomever was producing the documents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You've got better legs but I'm giving her the edge on titsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I am not a lawyer and really know nothing about the law, other than I follow what is generally published as statue. So with that said, you clearly can financially overwhelm the plaintiff with a counter lawsuit, correct? I mean, he is saying you besmirched his name, but can't you say the same about what he is doing? I mean your name is in the media now because of him, presumably affecting future opportunities. I dunno, this is one avenue I no nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordmanQuote:
Originally Posted by Cerveza Fria
Yeah that definitely looks pretty fucked up to me
So, what that tells me is that someone who works in attorney's office either 1) typed the pleading for him or 2) sent him the digital document to adapt to this case. Just look up the aforementioned case and you can see who the counsel is. See which law firm used the same person for the proof of service and bingo, you have that firm. Your attorney will know what to do with that information. If he had time to get someone to do this, he had time to get new counsel.
We know who the attorney is. His office sent the paperwork to my attorney and Veronica's attorney, but oddly hasn't officially signed on the represent Postle. Additionally, the filing claims that Postle has not yet found an attorney, and he signs everything "In Pro Per" (representing himself).
The attorney is not one who was previously associated with Postle in other cases, and is located in Sacramento.
We are guessing Postle called a random attorney and asked for help putting together this paperwork, on a consulting basis, rather than retaining him.
Do you know which law firms others like Haralabob retained and the status of their cases? i.e. are they at the same stage or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Can't you guys kind of copy and tweak from each other's lawyers to build the best possible defense as this slowly rocks along?
I don't know if any of the other defendants even hired lawyers. Nobody was served. Veronica and I went (separately) on the offensive, by hiring attorneys, auto-accepting service, and filing an anti-SLAPP.
I didn't want this shit hanging over me for eternity while Postle plays games. I took immediate action to extricate myself from this frivolous BS suit. We will see the result on March 18 (or later, if his continuance request succeeds).
BUMP
Case delayed again. The judge in the case ruled that Postle gets another 30 days. He wanted 120, the judge gave 30 (actually 33, but close enough).
New date for both anti-SLAPPs (mine and Veronica) is April 20.
It'll be that much sweeter when you bitchSLAPP him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Can you attend the hearing by Zoom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Let's all do our part on that day and smoke a joint for good luck.
Story here: https://www.pokernewsdaily.com/mike-...XPL9c4vH7Rb9Dc
#ForFuckSakes
but Rowe alleged that Postle had no communication with him and, perhaps more importantly, had not paid him to represent Postle in the case. TQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
If Rowe starts an aggressive effort to collect his fees that should put an end to this madness.
Mike Postle has dismissed his case without prejudice as to all defendants. Too bad that doesn't discharge him from owing attorney's fees now. Good example of a day late and a dollar short.
now what are the next steps to get money from a broke loser who sucks at poker?Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal_thinker
Quote:
Originally Posted by GambleBotsChafedPenisnow what are the next steps to get money from a broke loser who sucks at poker?Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal_thinker
I wonder what @dwai thinks about all this? Has the "woke" left cancelled Mike Postle?
Keep in mind two things:
- Postle asked for this to be dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, he could file the case again at any point in the future.
- We already had asked for a dismissal (though WITH prejudice) during the mandatory settlement conference, which is at the beginning of each case in California. We agreed to not go after him for any attorney's fees if he would dismiss with prejudice at that point. He refused, and moved forward with the case. Shortly after, we filed the anti-SLAPP.
So dismissing it at the 11th hour, after attorney's fees have been run up on my end, isn't going to fly here.
Radio was to be delayed until Saturday, because I am preparing for my next-morning fantasy baseball draft tonight.
However, I will do a short emergency radio segment tonight with Eric Bensamochan about this dismissal, and what we plan to do next.
I will also replay the segment tomorrow during radio, for those who missed it.
I think ERIC BENZAMOKIN IS GODQuote:
Originally Posted by BartHanson
TERMINATE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICEQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Geez - f n Postle.