I'm being sued by Mike Postle, as are ESPN, Doug Polk, Joey Ingram, Bart Hanson, Phil Galfond, Matt Berkey, Daniel Negreanu, Jonathan Little, Veronica Brill, Haralabob, and Pokernews

[MumblesBadly]

Interesting thread:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/rachelees69/status/1316219707058388993

Specifically this tweet:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/rachelees69/status/1316219731318206464

So RachelLees69 is saying the lawsuit was filed against these particular people (including Druff) so they wouldn't be able to participate in the documentary because they have to stay quiet during litigation. Interesting take.

It may be an interesting strategy if the documentary is being financed behind the scenes by Stones or its owner, but such a documentary would most likely be boring as hell and unlikely to get much traction with Netflix given that the story would push the narrative that there was no actual cheating going on. Who the fuck would want to watch something like that??

[Rick Sanchez]

It may be an interesting strategy if the documentary is being financed behind the scenes by Stones or its owner, but such a documentary would most likely be boring as hell and unlikely to get much traction with Netflix given that the story would push the narrative that there was no actual cheating going on. Who the fuck would want to watch something like that??

They make documentaries about all kinds of random things these days. You can go on Netflix right now and watch an award-winning doc about an old man making sushi or of nerds solving rubiks cubes.

btw I would take anything "Rachel" says with a grain of salt, there is something dodgy about this person.

[sonatine]

that stones would honestly think there is a single angle here for a documentary where they look good is a bit baffling.

[gut]

It may be an interesting strategy if the documentary is being financed behind the scenes by Stones or its owner, but such a documentary would most likely be boring as hell and unlikely to get much traction with Netflix given that the story would push the narrative that there was no actual cheating going on. Who the fuck would want to watch something like that??

They make documentaries about all kinds of random things these days. You can go on Netflix right now and watch an award-winning doc about an old man making sushi or of nerds solving rubiks cubes.

btw I would take anything "Rachel" says with a grain of salt, there is something dodgy about this person.

I mean, anyone with "69" at the end of their twitter handle screams "investigative journalist" to me.

[RegGaymer]

Michael the Archangel and the twelve Apostles

Druff stepping up from poker semi fame to Netflix supporting role congrats.

[Belly Buster]

that stones would honestly think there is a single angle here for a documentary where they look good is a bit baffling.

Somebody will need to make the documentary about the alleged scandal surrounding the documentary being made about alleged cheating scandal.

The metagame is real.

[MumblesBadly]

that stones would honestly think there is a single angle here for a documentary where they look good is a bit baffling.

Somebody will need to make the documentary about the alleged scandal surrounding the documentary being made about alleged cheating scandal.

The metagame is real.

Maybe David Broome is playing Team Postle and his backers for fools by getting them to be super cooperative and get them to say all kinds of stupid things on camera that will blow up in their face when this lawsuit is slapped down and he gets the anti-Postle side of the story.

[limitles]

Being slapped with a law suit is one thing but being labelled "an individual" has to
hurt as much as being called unsavoury.

It's time for herd mentality. To show my support I officially donate all future
free-roll winnings to the TW, Fight For Your Right, effort.

Shapiro, Shapiro, Shapiro and Sons are very economical I hear

The positive spin on all of this is we could see two of the poker world's
great minds working as one. I would suggest you latch onto Negreanu's team
of McDonald, McTavish, McIntyre and McDougall

[Walter Sobchak]

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.

An oath in court isn't based on any religious principle. Perjury is against the law and it's punished under the law.

[Walter Sobchak]

When did Brill say that she was a nihilist?

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.

Veronica Brill
23.1K Tweets
See new Tweets
Veronica Brill
@Angry_Polak
Born in Poland, love America, analytics, hypewoman, nugget host, RN, timetraveler, nihilist, Othello champ, pie chart pro IG: angry_polakv BLM

a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles

A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.

Are theft, slander, and perjury moral principles?

Nihilists, fuck me.

I mean say what you want about the tenets of National Socialist, at LEAST it's an ethos.

[Walter Sobchak]

I can't comment on any questions. Not at this time.

However, tonight on radio, Eric Bensamochan will appear and will make a statement on my behalf.

Haven't listened to radio archives yet. Is he representing you?

$300 million?

[Walter Sobchak]

thats absolutely incredible.

What will they think of next, a million black Republicans on twitter?

[Dan Druff]

A little about this Rachel Lees character from Twitter:

1) Almost 100% sure it's a dude. He/she has admitted that the name Rachel Lees is fake, and that it's "not necessarily" a female on the account.

2) It appears to be a guy in his 50s who worked on the managerial side in Silicon Valley at one point, and his connection to poker seems to date back to playing in LA area rooms like Hollywood Park about 20 years ago. He appeared back on the scene about 2 years ago for unknown reasons.

3) He's very intelligent, but easily offended, and is really odd in general, to say the least.

4) He used to be a regular listener of PFA Radio. However, he got mad at me for making a joke on Twitter about his gender bending, and he blocked me. I assume he doesn't listen anymore. When he did listen, he used to send me compliments that he really enjoyed the show.

[BCR]

I haven’t had an opportunity to listen to the podcasts. Does the fact her legal defense is being paid for by people who want this to go deep into the legal process and discovery fuck you in any way? Clearly you just want it over. There are those paying her bills that want it to be something where he is exposed. Given he has little for you to take if he’s exposed, that would make me think you have multiple defendants being sued with very differing agendas.

[turdzilla]

This is a shitty watered down interpretation of nihilism. Just because you don't believe that ethics are governed by some higher power or are baked into nature, doesn't mean you have no moral compass whatsoever. Nihilists are not a bunch of serial killers.

This is the same lazy argument about atheists having no reason not to rape women in the street. You don't need God to tell you not to do that. You can have your own reasons to be a decent person.

To be fair, it is most likely the most common interpretation of nihilism, being a shorthand for existential nihilism, which is what most people think of when someone mentions nihilism, hence the definition for it that popped up for turdzilla to reference. So unless Brill meant some other type of nihilism, she was being careless in using the generic term to identify herself with given the current common usage.

Her understanding of most things appears to be incomplete. I thought she saw The Big Lebowski and decided to include it.

[turdzilla]

I can't comment on any questions. Not at this time.

However, tonight on radio, Eric Bensamochan will appear and will make a statement on my behalf.

Sorry Duff, I missed he part where he said he was taking the case pro bono.

[turdzilla]

I haven’t had an opportunity to listen to the podcasts. Does the fact her legal defense is being paid for by people who want this to go deep into the legal process and discovery fuck you in any way? Clearly you just want it over. There are those paying her bills that want it to be something where he is exposed. Given he has little for you to take if he’s exposed, that would make me think you have multiple defendants being sued with very differing agendas.

I donated to her defense because the longer it drags out the better the book, movie, TV series, and Disney ride.

The fact that less than 10,000 people are playing casino poker at any time there better be a lot of skin in the movie to draw an audience.

[turdzilla]

that stones would honestly think there is a single angle here for a documentary where they look good is a bit baffling.

All they have to do is start and end it with the quote that Mac says they were as clean as the Peruvian Marching Candy that Silicon Valley is know for.

[The Shrink]

A little about this Rachel Lees character from Twitter:

1) Almost 100% sure it's a dude. He/she has admitted that the name Rachel Lees is fake, and that it's "not necessarily" a female on the account.

2) It appears to be a guy in his 50s who worked on the managerial side in Silicon Valley at one point, and his connection to poker seems to date back to playing in LA area rooms like Hollywood Park about 20 years ago. He appeared back on the scene about 2 years ago for unknown reasons.

3) He's very intelligent, but easily offended, and is really odd in general, to say the least.

4) He used to be a regular listener of PFA Radio. However, he got mad at me for making a joke on Twitter about his gender bending, and he blocked me. I assume he doesn't listen anymore. When he did listen, he used to send me compliments that he really enjoyed the show.

Can you comment on the validity of Rachel's theory that the lawsuit is meant to prevent pah-ticipation of various entities in the Boone documentary (because they must remain silent during pending litigation)?

[Dan Druff]

A little about this Rachel Lees character from Twitter:

1) Almost 100% sure it's a dude. He/she has admitted that the name Rachel Lees is fake, and that it's "not necessarily" a female on the account.

2) It appears to be a guy in his 50s who worked on the managerial side in Silicon Valley at one point, and his connection to poker seems to date back to playing in LA area rooms like Hollywood Park about 20 years ago. He appeared back on the scene about 2 years ago for unknown reasons.

3) He's very intelligent, but easily offended, and is really odd in general, to say the least.

4) He used to be a regular listener of PFA Radio. However, he got mad at me for making a joke on Twitter about his gender bending, and he blocked me. I assume he doesn't listen anymore. When he did listen, he used to send me compliments that he really enjoyed the show.

Can you comment on the validity of Rachel's theory that the lawsuit is meant to prevent pah-ticipation of various entities in the Boone documentary (because they must remain silent during pending litigation)?

Can't comment on this now, sorry.