Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
I think the law stipulates its not a legal matter. Lawsuits are Civil matters, so suing may be an option, but there's a legal cost in pursuing the matter.
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
New Mike Postle development (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter RainmanTrail
- Start date
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
I'm gonna give you a pass on the word "prosecute" because you're outside the US and I assume English is not your native language...
But I don't think the players have a case against Stone's... Their employees was not acting within the scope of his employment if he transmitted the hole card info to Postle, so Stones wouldn't have liability. Maybe on a theory of negligent supervision, but even then you have to prove that Stones' supervision was below what was expected or reasonable. I don't think you can do that based on the facts that I know.
The difference is, in a situation like that, the government regulatory agency is likely the Plaintiff... No players have to pick up the legal bills.
I heard murmurings recently that a Detroit casino was shorting the blackjack shoe on aces and face cards. I never heard how that played out...
Pretty sure that just refers to gambling dispute between private actors. Cheating a casino would be a whole different kettle of fish and probably its own criminal violation. Obviously Stones wanted nothing to do with litigation since it would open up a lot more discovery reagarding their own negligence and possible bad actions by an employee.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Assuming its a libel/defamation suit, I would think it has more legs than a suit trying to collect a gambling debt, unfortunately.
I disagree. As I understand it, the biggest problem with the suit against Postle was that California law didn’t provide for the recovery of gambling debts. So I wasn’t at all about what could be proven.
In a suit like this, he has to prove it’s more likely than not that they defamed him. And truth is a total defense. And all the evidence points to the truth that postle is a big fat stinky cheater. It’s no slam dunk of course - helping a non-poker playing jury or judge to understand the overwhelming evidence against him will be a hurdle for sure.
Now that I think about it, since the alleged defamation impugns his career, that may actually shift the burden to the defendants.
But the standard of proof is the same, as is the overwhelming evidence that he’s a scummy cheater.
But the standard of proof is the same, as is the overwhelming evidence that he’s a scummy cheater.
1) It’s very hard to prove libel/defamation, and also to quantify and prove actual damages. Not impossible... But my impression is that courts don’t want to be entertaining this kind of stuff all the time, and so all but the most egregious cases get shot down.
2) By countersuing his accusers, he’s foolishly opening the door for another close examination of his actions. Not going to be pretty for him in the poker world, even if he somehow finds a judge clueless/impatient enough not to understand the issues.
3) Didn’t he reach settlements with some players already? If so, that looks a lot like a tacit admission that there was something to the accusations.
2) By countersuing his accusers, he’s foolishly opening the door for another close examination of his actions. Not going to be pretty for him in the poker world, even if he somehow finds a judge clueless/impatient enough not to understand the issues.
3) Didn’t he reach settlements with some players already? If so, that looks a lot like a tacit admission that there was something to the accusations.
Last edited:
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
I think you're making my point.
Postle's suit may have more legs because it's not an attempt to enforce a gambling debt (or theft while gambling). I think Postle can make a prima facie case for defamation/libel and then it will be the Defendant's burden to prove the truth of the statements as a defense to Postle's claims... Postle's behavior may have looked like a duck and smelled like a duck, but unless you can prove it was a duck, you can't prove the truth of the statements.*
* - I haven't read the lawsuit and I don't know what others said (thinking about Ingram and Polk)... Did they say "Postle cheated" or did they say "Postle's behavior sure looks suspicious"? One is an opinion, the other is stated as a fact.
I'm not saying it'll be easy... Quite the opposite. I think it's just a ploy to advance his narrative...that he didn't cheat. My guess is no one pays any money, except to the lawyers.
Last edited:
But here, the burden of proof is important. Unlike a “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal case (where the jury needs to be at someone like 99%! likely that the guy did it,” here, they don’t need to be as persuasive.
I’m not sure if the burden of proof is more likely than not, or clear and convincing, but either way, if I was the defendant, I’d take this bitch to trial!
When one is walking in the woods and comes upon a kettle of crazy, best not to stir it.
Looks like Mike has opted for a two handles ladle instead.
It’s a bold move, Let’s see how this works out for him.
Looks like Mike has opted for a two handles ladle instead.
It’s a bold move, Let’s see how this works out for him.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
If I were him, I'd still be "quarantining at home"...
I imagine he couldn't while a lawsuit against him was pending. If Stones is a defendant, I can't imagine he still isn't... Regardless, I'd be amazed if he showed his face at that card room again. Ever.
Also, I just noticed the caption says the complaint weeks injunctive relief. Has anyone else seen the complaint? Is there any other counts?
I imagine he couldn't while a lawsuit against him was pending. If Stones is a defendant, I can't imagine he still isn't... Regardless, I'd be amazed if he showed his face at that card room again. Ever.
Also, I just noticed the caption says the complaint weeks injunctive relief. Has anyone else seen the complaint? Is there any other counts?
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
I don't know about California specifically, but usually the civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, i.e. "more likely than not," i.e. 51%.
Last edited:
It’s funny because Daniel was just laughing about the on his podcast yesterday, and doubling down on the fact that he was a cheater (obviously before he was served.)
He was laughing at the fact that these guys” (postle and jfk) post settlement statements were so obnoxious that they caused the previously uninvolved Phil Galfond to rally the poker world to help him prove the case.
And now this.
It’s good theater.
He was laughing at the fact that these guys” (postle and jfk) post settlement statements were so obnoxious that they caused the previously uninvolved Phil Galfond to rally the poker world to help him prove the case.
And now this.
It’s good theater.
The article I read last week said that he had gone to Florida. I guess he had strangers showing up at his door and was in fear of his safety.
aka Kettle of Crazy referenced above. I’m sure the people he cheated are not a threat but wierdo renegades on the internet could become vigilantes for attention or because they are crazy.
SixSpeedFury
Full House
All I have to say to this is L.O.L. I hope it blows up in his face.
https://www.pokertube.com/article/m...3hCj0Hmzq7H9YTE2m-VzMYn_W8ztLYS4x1eW0RtXAMFYE
https://www.pokertube.com/article/m...3hCj0Hmzq7H9YTE2m-VzMYn_W8ztLYS4x1eW0RtXAMFYE
He’s counting on the settlement to make it go away money.
I think he's overplaying his hand. When you name THAT many defendants, doesn't it make it easier for them to chip in for a defense?
And Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? This guy needs to fuck right off
Last edited:
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
Everybody who said something but isn't named is super tense right now (as they wait to see if they will be substituted on for one of the Does 1-1000.) And all of those that didnt say anything publicly are sighing in relief.
The net result of lawsuits like this is to have a chilling effect on free speech, for fear of later having to defend a lawsuit.
I would answer with a countersuit for false prosecution, assuming a prima facie case could be made.
BukNaked36
Straight
Isn't Postle just hoping for a bunch of settlements from guys that don't want to pay an attorney?
Kain8
Flush
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.