Originally Posted by
nutty007
You are probably right about the attorneys fees and making too much out of it but it is a curiosity as I do not really understand the legal framework, however, based on the PDF it does seem hostile towards the defence and lawyer representing ( Eric ), is this standard ?
Now this is coming to an end what have you achieved above and beyond what everyone who did nothing achieved ? On the face of it it seems that you have occurred additional costs compared to those who did not aggressively attack this with no upside , what were the benefits in the pro active approach that you took ?
The court wasn't hostile toward Eric. They were making matter-of-fact statements that they felt some of the charges were excessive. This is very standard language. The court isn't interested in being polite -- just very straightforward and clear regarding whether they think a claim is valid or not. The judge basically looks at the work done, ballparks in his/her head what it should really costs, and awards accordingly. It's not too different from when someone sues for some kind of damages and gets a partial award. It's also important to note that Eric charged only a little bit more than half of what Randazza did, so obviously he wasn't pumping up the bill. Much of this could have been a lot cheaper if Postle just answered the anti-SLAPP at the beginning and showed up at the hearing for it. We did everything we could to bring the charges down, and the record shows it.
Regarding your other question as to why I aggressively responded, I decided that I wanted to get out of this frivolous (but very large) suit as soon as possible, and be done. As you noticed, I wasn't interested in bringing it to discovery or turning it into a spectacle. I wanted it to be done ASAP, and put it out of my head. There are also implications to being named in a $330 million lawsuit, whereas any time I get a loan for any reason, this has to be disclosed, and can affect whether I get the loan. You just don't want this sort of thing hanging over you, especially when you know it's frivolous, and the intention seemed to involve filing it and just letting it sit without serving anyone. I don't tolerate that bullshit. I'm going to act quickly and make the other side answer to what they're doing.
Most importantly, I was never a major player in this entire situation, and Postle's public image would have turned out the same whether or not I commented on it. I was just one of thousands of people commenting on the matter -- a story which was probably in the top 3 of all time in poker. The story blew up on social media for several days before I even said a word about it. I shouldn't have been part of this suit, regardless of how much Postle felt he was wronged by the community. We gave him a chance to realize this and to drop it, in exchange for eating the fees I had spent fighting it up to that point -- and he refused.
I guess you can say that the other 10 defendants got the benefit of the work put in by Eric Bensamochan and Marc Randazza. So be it.