Quote Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
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.
Seems like Postle might be a "public person" which under slander/libel law in most states makes them harder to slander/libel?

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.

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.