2 plus 2 sucks
2 plus 2 sucks
Video is now marked private and unavailable. Is there a link to it somewhere else?
Sadly not to my knowledge. I wish they archived these, but they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
I think most courts in CA have a rule against broadcasting, which includes rebroadcasting, the video court hearings without the Judges permission. Like Sac Rule 1.124. Sac looks like the video is up for the day of the hearing and then removed at the close of business.
Druffs case is over so whatever. IMO Veronica should be a bit more cautious until she gets her judgment
Also Mason and his site are washed up and useless
Postle is a poker pro, I'm sure he'll be able to win that money in a week and you'll be paid by WSOP 2021.
The weird thing is that I'm the only one in poker to get a judgment against Mike Postle -- and I never even played poker with him, nor have I ever met the guy.
This will likely change next week, when Veronica is highly probable to become the second.
Still, when this whole thing broke 19 months ago, if forced to guess who would win the first court judgment against the guy, I wouldn't have picked myself in the first 1,000 guesses.
As I've stated a ton of times, I never wanted any of this. I didn't even get involved in commenting until several days after it blew up. Even after it became a big story, I never exploited the situation for views or clicks. I only covered the matter when there was something new to talk about. Even when sued myself, I gave matter-of-fact updates on the case as it progressed, and that was it.
Hopefully this situation will at least make others think twice before engaging in frivolous defamation suits against poker personalities, who are simply commenting on current events.
Druff clearly had the best Legal Representation here...
There really is a massive difference unfortunately in Quality of Defense that one can hire, and honestly some people can't afford the highest of quality legal representation. The State Attorney's or Public Defender's Office isn't referred to as the 'Public Pretenders' Office for no reason. They are actually wayyy over worked and have unreasonable case loads, which Private Counsel does not if you can afford that of course. .Druff clearly had the best, got the first settlement well played whoever it was. If it was Bensomoean (sp?)
lol well played well played
I gather that Bart Hanson saved a copy of the relevant portion of the original video and uploaded to youtube:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
https://youtu.be/zAdMLLW5rIg
It really is something to behold. Postle is completely out to lunch. You can see where this is heading the whole time. He has no legal recourse. The judge knows it. Eric Bensamochan knows it. So we sit and watch Postle ramble incoherently for 20 minutes and wait for the judge to basically say, "Nothing you just said matters. You owe Todd this money."
I can't imagine how the Brill hearing will go. Postle looks like a broken man. For the sake of his daughter I hope he doesn't do something drastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ShrinkI gather that Bart Hanson saved a copy of the relevant portion of the original video and uploaded to youtube:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
https://youtu.be/zAdMLLW5rIg
It really is something to behold. Postle is completely out to lunch. You can see where this is heading the whole time. He has no legal recourse. The judge knows it. Eric Bensamochan knows it. So we sit and watch Postle ramble incoherently for 20 minutes and wait for the judge to basically say, "Nothing you just said matters. You owe Todd this money."
I can't imagine how the Brill hearing will go. Postle looks like a broken man. For the sake of his daughter I hope he doesn't do something drastic.
He really was off. All the repetitive over-explaining about why he didn’t have legal counsel. Like a judge doesn’t immediately know if you had a real case against high wealth individuals like many among those sued, you’d have no shortage of attorneys happy to take their money and your case. That zoom call was like here’s a quick example of wasting the courts time in some law school.
lol, the 26k doesn't hurt either ehQuote:
Originally Posted by brutal_thinker
43k actuallyQuote:
Originally Posted by dwailol, the 26k doesn't hurt either ehQuote:
Originally Posted by brutal_thinker
Just watched the vid. Plaintiff is an idiot. The judge is a really good judge. You got a bit lucky there to have your case heard in her courtroom.
Vid is solid gold
Holy fuck Postle is an idiot
That judge was way too nice about this. Postle literally spewed a bunch of meaningless gibberish the entire time and did nothing more than waste everyone's time and make himself look stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ShrinkI gather that Bart Hanson saved a copy of the relevant portion of the original video and uploaded to youtube:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
https://youtu.be/zAdMLLW5rIg
It really is something to behold. Postle is completely out to lunch. You can see where this is heading the whole time. He has no legal recourse. The judge knows it. Eric Bensamochan knows it. So we sit and watch Postle ramble incoherently for 20 minutes and wait for the judge to basically say, "Nothing you just said matters. You owe Todd this money."
I can't imagine how the Brill hearing will go. Postle looks like a broken man. For the sake of his daughter I hope he doesn't do something drastic.
I didnt record this, but its gold.
There's some pretty poor understanding of defamation law on 2+2, a forum which tends to be full of pseudointellectuals who posture as if they know about a topic, but in reality are completely misinformed.
I'm glad we don't have such stupidity over here. The discussion in this thread has been intelligent, for the most part.
Defamation is far more complicated than people think. In general, you have to consider:
- Whether the defendant was expressing an opinion or a statement of fact
- Whether the plaintiff was a public figure and/or limited purpose public figure
- Whether the defendant suffered actual damages from the alleged defamation
- Whether the statements in question were a matter of public concern
- Whether the defendant's statements were false
- If the defendant's statements were false, did he/she know it at the time they said it?
All of the above goes into the analysis of the quality of a defamation lawsuit. In most cases, these are not winnable, as there's a fairly high standard for what qualifies as actionable defamation. The court doesn't want to be bogged down by a million cases every time someone is butthurt because someone else said something bad about them.
The proper legal advice to Postle here should have been, "This case sucks. Don't file it, especially in California which has strong anti-SLAPP laws." I don't know what advice he actually got, and if he chose to follow it.
Many dummies in the 2+2 thread thought that Postle had a slam dunk defamation case because the lawsuit against him in June was dismissed on a California law technicality.
Postle’s actions in this hearing remind of the adage that “Someone who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client.”Quote:
Originally Posted by The ShrinkI gather that Bart Hanson saved a copy of the relevant portion of the original video and uploaded to youtube:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt The Rat
https://youtu.be/zAdMLLW5rIg
It really is something to behold. Postle is completely out to lunch. You can see where this is heading the whole time. He has no legal recourse. The judge knows it. Eric Bensamochan knows it. So we sit and watch Postle ramble incoherently for 20 minutes and wait for the judge to basically say, "Nothing you just said matters. You owe Todd this money."
I can't imagine how the Brill hearing will go. Postle looks like a broken man. For the sake of his daughter I hope he doesn't do something drastic.
In my experience, most Courts will go out of their way to accommodate Pro Se parties, and this hearing seemed no different. Your attorney was smart to just sit back and let the Court make his arguments for him, especially on the point made by Postle about you not needing to hire counsel before Service of Process. Enjoy the collection process!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Nothing new but story update about latest ruling is on Poker News Daily here
https://www.pokernewsdaily.com/mike-...yuIjRE2oeKAV60
I like how Drexel pronounces Eric's name like it rhymes with omicron
Not sure if you recall by EB was on the show awhile back and actually clarified its pronounced Ben-Som-I-Khan .. Druff has pepetuated the whole Benz-i-mochan thing its kinda become an inside joke much like the Arch Chives thing..Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
In case you guys were looking forward to another Postle apperance in ZOOM court tomorrow, you'll be disappointed. It appears that the court itself continued the Veronica Brill attorneys fees hearing until June 16, for unspecified reasons.
While Postle himself was responsible for previous delays, it looks like this one was the court's own action, and this continuance was requested by neither Postle nor Brill.Quote:
Item 19 2020-00286265-CU-DF Michael Postle vs. Veronica Brill
Motion for Attorney Fees
On the Court's own motion, this matter is continued to 6/16/2021 at 01:30PM in this department.
Probably want to make sure theres a mute button for Postle in case he goes off the rails again..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm looking forward to hearing about your efforts to collect.
:failQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak
Zero point Zero chance of collecting anything. He's broke and I believe can file bankruptcy on the attorney fees.
Be a great question to ask bennsmoking on next show.
Remember legendary 2000s-era Pokerstars player "stevesbets"? He has since moved from pro poker to law, and is now a New York attorney. He recently started a law-related podcast, aimed primarily at the layman.
I appeared on this show, which was recorded a week ago, and just posted today. It's all about this situation, and the legal issues surrounding it.
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2BVkbLVVy8kdYQ5lSkd5sA
iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000523374532
You can also play it through the show's webpage (which uses Soundcloud). I'm on Episode 6: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.co...n-gambling-law
I will briefly mention this on radio tonight, but I'm not going to play it.
The first 22 minutes are mostly me talking about myself, my background, and explaining live streams. You might find that boring, especially since most of you already know all that stuff. So you won't lose a lot if you skip to the 22 minute mark. The entire show is 97 minutes.
How does it work in US?
Are you entitled to get Postle´s money before Veronica (when she wins her case)
Right now, yes, we have the only judgment, so she can't collect. Once she gets a judgment, I believe it's whoever makes a specific collection effort first. But don't quote me on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegetera
In Sweden we can just send the debt to government authority (the enforcement office). And they collect for youQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffRight now, yes, we have the only judgment, so she can't collect. Once she gets a judgment, I believe it's whoever makes a specific collection effort first. But don't quote me on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegetera
Veronica moving forward with no fear.
https://twitter.com/Angry_Polak/stat...70215154274311
Veronica's interview with Sabina Johnson, Postle's ex-wife https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJTD-E6FWo
Who’s gonna publish Michael Lawrence Postle’s arrest record? Or Harrah’s ban?
Unfortunately, while I'm sure a lot of people would love to pile on Postle here, I don't find this woman very credible.
First off, Postle has full custody of their kid. So obviously she had a lot of "issues" for that to be the case. It's not like he's the ideal parent with a stable lifestyle, so for him to be the parent given full custody, there's obviously something wrong with her.
Her story was also very inconsistent and all over the place. I also found a few contradictions. I'm sure there were some elements of truth in there, but I'm sure there were plenty of outright inaccuracies, as well.
I also don't believe that Moneymaker was helping Postle cheat at any time, and her own accounts of this seemed very contradictory (at one point she said that Chris had a lot of integrity.)
This whole thing had potential, and I know Veronica tried hard to get the woman on track, but I have to file this thing in the hearsay category and move on.
In before Postles ex and potentially Veronica get sued by Moneymaker for defamation. She might wanna keep Rendazas number handy she might need it. Veronicas exposure is only slight but one might argue she should’ve vetted that accusation some before putting it out on YouTube. Just my .02.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Also in before a porn company offers the two of them big money for a lesbian scene. If Larry Flynt were alive, he'd make it happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftpjesusIn before Postles ex and potentially Veronica get sued by Moneymaker for defamation. She might wanna keep Rendazas number handy she might need it. Veronicas exposure is only slight but one might argue she should’ve vetted that accusation some before putting it out on YouTube. Just my .02.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The ex-wife said that Postle is not tech savvy. If that's true, then how did he pull off this scam without inside help?
There were some potentially good judgment collection nuggets in the video.
It's a bad interview. She doesn't come across well. She can't remember names and gets simple details wrong. She implied that Moneymaker was involved in cheating with Postle on Pokerstars. It's a mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Then she released this video on Twitter to snap back at people "hating" on her and she sounds drunk:
Then there's this guy (who appears to be a Postle defender) who has been sharing this mugshot. It suggests Postle's ex was recently arrested (01/05/2021) for driving drunk with her two children in the car.
Is it legit? If so, yikes.
Moneymaker's statement, from 2+2:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=12951Quote:
saw the videos and still have no idea what I am accused of. I knew mike from tunica where we played 2-5. We spoke but not often, not sure how we were besties. My wife has never met him and I have never met this lady. Did not talk to him outside of the poker game. He moved years ago and never spoke to him or knew where he moved too. Did my first appearance at Stones and he was there and we reconnected. We talked more often once reconnecting and I was going to Stones for appearances and to play in that insane game. Went on a "field trip" with about 5 players and Justin to San Francisco during that time, was the only time we were ever social off the poker table.
He called me the day Veronica broke the story and I went to bat for him as I did not think he was cheating in the games when we played together. Been cheated in two games and figured it out, did not feel like it when we played. Once I saw all the evidence I distanced myself from him. We had a text message exchange probably a year ago about the documentary and wanting me to be involved somehow. He reached out again to me today to apologize but I did not know for what. Pretty much sums it up.
This woman isn’t the brightest bulb, clearly has some issues she’s dealing with, has poor communicating skills,etc. However, I did find her credible in most cases. I believe the steak story and the mirror story. I believe when she talks about Postle she is describing the guy I’ve always thought of him to be.
When she says I know he and “Moneymaker” are still close because Postle told her so, she is showing that she is just not a critical thinker. I’m sure she has no idea how reputable Moneymaker’s name is in poker and how it would benefit Mike to program her to believe he has always had his back & that the two are close. I think she just has been filled with a lot of gunk from Mike and unfortunately that showed up very poorly in that segment of the interview. I do not think her intention was to disparage Moneymaker, but that is what happened.
Not everyone makes a great witness but she is the witness. Veronica has to take what she can get. She can’t say “sorry you aren’t the best interview so we’re just not going to do it”. It does appear that she has things that would be used against her in a cross examination. My gut is she was telling the truth in most cases or what she believed to be the truth.
I think Veronica would completely edit out any mention of Moneymaker before letting the interview air if she could do it again. Contact Chris before this aired and clarify this matter before letting it fly. I like Veronica and may be a bit biased… I will admit. But I think conducting the interview was the right call.
The most telling thing was the text messages that are posted in the last minute of the video.
Makes Mike out to be a real manipulative bastard.
There's no doubt that this chick has a lot of issues, and at the very least, her memory seems somewhat faulty.
This becomes a problem when you're believing stories, especially ones from over 10 years ago.
It's easy to believe the person criticizing an unsympathetic character (which Postle definitely is), but I always like to take an honest and critical look at everything.
In this case, it's tough to figure out, as I believe Postle is a piece of shit, but I also think this chick has lots of problems and isn't a reliable source of info. So you have a case where you have an unreliable person telling stories about someone you can easily picture doing bad things. In such cases, I tend to just discard everything if it's just too hard to tell.
I agree with Belly, though. The most interesting part is the text messages, which unless faked, are pretty telling.