How much was tonight’s free roll? I missed it.Originally Posted by Dan Druff
How much was tonight’s free roll? I missed it.
The legal discussion of this matter on 2+2 (well, what's left of it) is laughably bad.
That site used to have a lot of good posts, but a low signal-to-noise ratio. Now it's just all noise.
Very true. And what's this shit? So 2+2 doesn't want you to post their shit over here but they can take stuff from PFA and post it over there willy-nilly? And why wouldn't Chubs make it clear in the actual post where this is from rather than specify in the reason for editing. It makes it seem like Chubs is Druff (and I'm guessing it's not).
Great going Druff and Attorney Eric.
I'm setting the odds at even money for his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, sometime before December 31, 2021.
Chubs is not me. I don't have a fake account on 2+2, and I wouldn't call it "Chubs" if I did.Very true. And what's this shit? So 2+2 doesn't want you to post their shit over here but they can take stuff from PFA and post it over there willy-nilly? And why wouldn't Chubs make it clear in the actual post where this is from rather than specify in the reason for editing. It makes it seem like Chubs is Druff (and I'm guessing it's not).
are you banned from 2+2?Chubs is not me. I don't have a fake account on 2+2, and I wouldn't call it "Chubs" if I did.
Very true. And what's this shit? So 2+2 doesn't want you to post their shit over here but they can take stuff from PFA and post it over there willy-nilly? And why wouldn't Chubs make it clear in the actual post where this is from rather than specify in the reason for editing. It makes it seem like Chubs is Druff (and I'm guessing it's not).
Slava Ukraini!
are you banned from 2+2?
https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...tennis-charity
Very true. And what's this shit? So 2+2 doesn't want you to post their shit over here but they can take stuff from PFA and post it over there willy-nilly? And why wouldn't Chubs make it clear in the actual post where this is from rather than specify in the reason for editing. It makes it seem like Chubs is Druff (and I'm guessing it's not).
lol it was me you faggotsChubs is not me. I don't have a fake account on 2+2, and I wouldn't call it "Chubs" if I did.
Very true. And what's this shit? So 2+2 doesn't want you to post their shit over here but they can take stuff from PFA and post it over there willy-nilly? And why wouldn't Chubs make it clear in the actual post where this is from rather than specify in the reason for editing. It makes it seem like Chubs is Druff (and I'm guessing it's not).
Last edited by nunbeater; 12-10-2020 at 09:54 PM. Reason: sad that you guys don't recognize the greatest golfer of all time
Here what happened: Postle’s attorney isn’t getting paid, or he took it on a contingency and now realizes the risk is higher than the reward. Good luck Druff, but getting a judgment is easy, collecting on it is an entirely different matter.
Very high chance it's a nonpayment thing. This, of course, raises the question of what was the plan in the first place. Surely it wasn't a surprise that hiring a Beverly Hills entertainment firm is expensive!Here what happened: Postle’s attorney isn’t getting paid, or he took it on a contingency and now realizes the risk is higher than the reward. Good luck Druff, but getting a judgment is easy, collecting on it is an entirely different matter.
It's highly unlikely that this was a contingency thing, for several reasons. Regarding the risk, this case is pretty much a picture-perfect example of why anti-SLAPP legislation was written in the first place. Any attorney preparing this lawsuit and not aware of the anti-SLAPP risk (especially with 10 or so different defendants named) is guilty of malpractice.
There are several bizarre elements to this case. This latest development is one of them, but also:
- There are a lot of different and unrelated defendants named, all of whom could easily prevail on anti-SLAPP motions, which could easily put Postle on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars collectively. Given the likelihood of anti-SLAPP prevailing, why did he do this?
- Nobody was ever served or attempted to have been served, to my knowledge. To this date, I believe the only person served was me, and this was only by default because my attorney reached out to his attorney and accepted service on my behalf, and started our legal process in response to the filed suit.
- It is unclear who is/was funding this lawsuit.
- It is unclear why an entertainment firm in Beverly Hills was chosen, given that Mike Postle lives in Sacramento, and given that this firm does not seem to have a specialty in defamation cases.
I have my theories regarding answers to the above, but I can't discuss them right now. I have been studying a lot of aspects of this closely, behind the scenes. There are other aspects to this I haven't even brought out yet, but I will be unrolling in 2021. Buckle up.
Regarding collection, you are correct that this will definitely be the hardest part of the process. We are not optimistic that Postle will be easily collectible if we win any attorneys fees from him. However, I can assure you that we are committed to aggressively go after this, even if it takes years. This will be a thorn in his side, even if he doesn't realize it yet.
As I said on radio, I know someone who won a court judgment against an uncollectable person, but they kept at it for many years, partially due to personal hatred of the defendant. Ten years passed, and the defendant remained uncollectable. Undeterred, the plaintiff got the judgment renewed. At about the 13-year mark, the defendant settled down somewhat and got a regular job. The plaintiff found them and garnished their wages. The defendant was shocked, as they were a career deadbeat and had fucked a ton of people over the years, and everyone else had long forgotten about it. Significant interest had also occurred. The defendant laughably tried to negotiate at that point, and of course that was rejected. The judgment and all the interest were collected.
This will be similar, provided we get a judgment.
Postle should talk to the Subway which didn't give you tomatoes on the side if he thinks you'll drop this out of collection not being worth your time.
I say that with the highest level of respect, of course.
"Witteles is himself a well-known professional poker player."
If you will I get a return on my investment in Brill's defense fund.Here what happened: Postle’s attorney isn’t getting paid, or he took it on a contingency and now realizes the risk is higher than the reward. Good luck Druff, but getting a judgment is easy, collecting on it is an entirely different matter.
Get Wired recent podcast.
Get it here, or wherever you get your podcasts: https://www.wired.com/story/get-wire...poker-scandal/
#FREEJACK #NEVERFORGET
NoFraud Online Poker Room: http://nofraud.pokerfraudalert.com:8087. For password resets and reload requests PM me.
The quick thought, I figured the filed lawsuit was a total bluff from the beginning where he thought the parties would jump to settle to get out of it. No one jumped, so the lawyer bailed and MP figured the thing would just fizzle away. Correct?
You’d be the last person in the world I’d want to have a judgement against me. My only chance would be your death and I have little doubt you’d set Benjamin upon a vendetta to collect.
I’m more of the mind that Postle’s best chance of countering this motion is by questioning the grammatical skills of Druff’s attorney given the potentially extraneous comma in this sentence from Page 2, Lines 20-21"Witteles is himself a well-known professional poker player."
After the court rules on Witteles’ special motion to strike, Witteles intends to seek an award of his attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to CCP 425.16(c).
_____________________________________________
BUMP
Veronica has hired celebrity first amendment attorney Marc Randazza to defend her in this case.
https://twitter.com/Angry_Polak/status/1347443149472350209
https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1347530621149728769
https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1347530272250732544
https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1347619367878594563
Randazza has appeared on CNN and other broadcast media as a first amendment expert. He mainly defends first amendment cases.
Shortly after I broke the news of the Postle lawsuit on October 1, someone contacted me (not affiliated with this case on either side) and recommended Randazza. This person suggested that I go in with a group of other case defendants who were considering hiring Randazza together, in order to avoid duplicate work and save money. I said I would consider it, but ultimately went with Eric Bensamochan, as he is both a personal friend and friend of PFA Radio. I also knew Eric was a very competent attorney, from my various discussions with him over the years, both on and off radio.
Anyway, Randazza did seem like a good choice also, though I'm always a bit leery of any celebrity type option in any industry, as they are often more about show than results. I will say that Randazza did a great job for Scott Roeben (VitalVegas), in the lawsuit from the Sahara, where Roeben ultimately prevailed in his anti-SLAPP motion.
However, Randazza is not without his own blemishes.
First, he was suspended for 12 months from the Nevada State Bar in 2018, over ethics and conflict of interest violations: https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Randazza.pdf
Here's a video on that. Dude in the video looks like Micon.
Of note, the suspension was for 12 months, but it was held back for another 18 months, and was to likely be dismissed if he didn't screw up again. Indeed, 18 months did complete in April 2020, and Randazza seems to have had that lifted.
The record therefore establishes that Randazza violated the above-listed rules by loaning money to his client without informing the client in writing of the desirability of obtaining independent counsel, and by negotiating with opposing counsel to receive, as part of a settlement, a retainer for future legal services.
He also got disciplined (but not suspended) in California, in January 2020. It is not clear if this was over the same matter: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/269535
It doesn't appear that any of this stuff is super serious, but his recent record definitely isn't blemish-free.
Anyway, Randazza attempted to file his own anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of Brill, but it got rejected by the court:
It appears that it was rejected due to an appearance fee not being paid. However, this might just be an oversight committed by a third-party service which Randazza might have been using.Motion to Strike (Anti Slapp Special Motion to Strike Complaint) submitted by Brill, Veronica rejected on 01/11/2021 .
As soon as her anti-SLAPP gets accepted and successfully filed, I will post it here. I will be interested to see how it compares to the one I filed.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Reply With Quote
