Plaintiffs' Case Against Mike Postle, Stones Dismissed by Judge
Poll
 | 7 votes (53.84%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) | ||
| | 1 vote (7.69%) |
13 members have voted
Quote: AxelWolfhttps://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/06/plaintiffs-case-against-mike-postle-dismissed-by-judge-37385.htm
Postle should go after the people who tried to take this to court.
Quote: billryanPostle should go after the people who tried to take this to court.
uh, wat? Dude is guilty as sin.
Explain why? They had a legitimate case with overwhelming circumstantial evidence.Quote: billryanPostle should go after the people who tried to take this to court.
You might not think what he did was illegal and you might not think there's enough hard evidence. But certainly, it wasn't a frivolous unfounded accusation. What legitimate grounds would he have to sue for? I think he would be an idiot to sue anyone considering the fact that he is 100% guilty(someone might actually find a Smoking Gun).
If you can't see that, or don't understand, I don't really don't know what to say. It would be very hard to find any legitimate gambling expert, poker expert or sane poker player that doesn't believe he cheated. I haven't found one person with any sense that doesn't think he absolutely cheated, even people who have very little experience in poker. People have been convicted of murder, rape and other terrible things with much much less evidence.
Quote: AxelWolfExplain why? They had a legitimate case with overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
You might not think what he did was illegal and you might not think there's enough hard evidence. But certainly, it wasn't a frivolous unfounded accusation. What legitimate grounds would he have to sue for? I think he would be an idiot to sue anyone considering the fact that he is 100% guilty(someone might actually find a Smoking Gun).
If you can't see that, or don't understand, I don't really don't know what to say. It would be very hard to find any legitimate gambling expert, poker expert or sane poker player that doesn't believe he cheated. I haven't found one person with any sense that doesn't think he absolutely cheated, even people who have very little experience in poker. People have been convicted of murder, rape and other terrible things with much much less evidence.
Why did the judge dismiss the case? From the article, it seems there was no case under California law so it was a frivolous lawsuit.
It doesn't matter what poker experts say, or sane or insane players. What matters is what the law says.
Quote: billryanWhy did the judge dismiss the case? From the article, it seems there was no case under California law so it was a frivolous lawsuit.
It doesn't matter what poker experts say, or sane or insane players. What matters is what the law says.
Judge didn’t say it was a frivolous lawsuit. And I don’t see any law that would allow Postle to recover against the plaintiffs. So if the law is all that matters (which is a position I’d be surprised that you apply consistently based on your posts) then there’s no case.
Something like:
1. "Lucky for Postle, that he was in California ..."
2. "... and/or he knew more about CA law than we would like to give him credit for"
Quote: billryan(snip)
It doesn't matter what poker experts say, or sane or insane players. What matters is what the law says.
"You are technically correct, the best kind of correct"
Anyway on a more serious note, I hope they win their (amended) suit against Stones..., since it looks like they won't be able to go after Postle again ("barring an appeal").
Quote: billryanWhy did the judge dismiss the case? From the article, it seems there was no case under California law so it was a frivolous lawsuit.
The article lol didn't say that.
Quote: gordonm888There are many many lawsuits that are dismissed because of jurisdictional issues as the Postle case was. The judge in the Postle case made no judgement about the claims of the case but said that California has previously decided that the courts will not decide issues related to card games - primarily because there is no way to assess damages because nobody can determine what would have happened if the claimed crimes/cheating had not occurred.
So the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit knowing California courts had already said they would not entertain such cases. That sounds pretty frivolous to me.
But not in the eyes of the law. And all the matters is the law (someone once told me).Quote: billryanSo the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit knowing California courts had already said they would not entertain such cases. That sounds pretty frivolous to me.
Quote: billryanSo the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit knowing California courts had already said they would not entertain such cases. That sounds pretty frivolous to me.
Believe it or not lawyer's don't usually know all the laws and precedent. Usually they know very little.
Convince an attorney to take the case and he will do research on what precedent and law seems to best serve his side. He presents that to the judge
Here the defense probably dug up the precedent. As noted, they filed a motion to dismiss, basically saying to the judge check it out, we think this supports our reasons for dismissal.
The opposing side has a certain time frame to find contradictory law to support their case
Then the judge makes his decision.
He is human and can even be overruled on appeal which is why that exists.
So, to call this frivolous is like calling the entire system as setup frivolous.
It's not unheard of for motions to go through. Some work, some don't. That's the game of practicing law
Quote: billryanWhy did the judge dismiss the case? From the article, it seems there was no case under California law so it was a frivolous lawsuit.
It doesn't matter what poker experts say, or sane or insane players. What matters is what the law says.
I would have pegged you for the type of guy who would be willing to say "the law is wrong" at certain times.
Do you think it's a reasonable assumption that he used a device in order to see his opponents hole cards?Quote: billryan
so if a CA casino cheated in cards craps, there's nothing the gambler can do?Quote: gordonm888There are many many lawsuits that are dismissed because of jurisdictional issues as the Postle case was.
The judge in the Postle case made no judgement about the claims of the case but said that California has previously decided that the courts will not decide issues related to card games - primarily because there is no way to assess damages because nobody can determine what would have happened if the claimed crimes/cheating had not occurred.
Quote: AxelWolfDo you think it's a reasonable assumption that he used a device in order to see his opponents hole cards?
What I think doesn't really matter when the law is already settled. I personally think the California law is too broad but that is irrelevant.
The law can be an ass at times and bad people can exploit it, but to find a person guilty takes more than a reasonable assumption.
Quote: 100xOddsso if a CA casino cheated in cards craps, there's nothing the gambler can do?
Not a lawyer but I have read quite a lot about this stuff so take it with a grain of salt. Im pretty sure craps in California only exists in indian casinos. In that case it's unlikely the gambler would have any recourse as indian casinos are governed and regulated by their owners (the tribe) who obviously have the best interest in the casino and their own pocket books in mind.
Stones is not an indian casino, it's a card room, meaning they are allowed to offer card games where the players compete against each other (not the house) and the card room makes money by charging rake or a commission for dealing the game. These card rooms are supposed to be governed by the state and their gaming enforcement agency or whatever it's called.
I wonder the card rooms COULD legally offer card craps if a player (or corporation veiled as a player) banked the game? The overhead might be too high to make it worthwhile to them.
Quote: TomGI would have pegged you for the type of guy who would be willing to say "the law is wrong" at certain times.
I think a lot of laws are wrong but in a court of law, what do we follow if not the law? I think it's ridiculous that you can go to jail in Arizona for possessing something you can legally buy in Nevada and support efforts to change the law but recognize that the laws of Arizona will remain in effect if I agree with them or not.
Four tourists come to Nevada and each buys an ounce of pot from a legal, state-sanctioned source. They go visit the Hoover Dam and cross into Arizona where they are arrested, each is charged with possession of the four ounces found in the car and suddenly are facing two years in prison. I think the law is wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them.
California has decided it will not entertain disputes about card games in it's courts. I can stamp my feet and disagree but it doesn't change that fact.
Did this guy get lucky with the judge's decision or did he know all along he had a get out of jail free card?
BTW, the Borgata tried to stick him with ten times the amount claiming they wanted the expected losses from his play.
The judge denied that on the same principal. Losses cannot be determined as there is too much unknown as to actual outcome i.e. a player may have actually gotten lucky and won against expectation.
Ivey was only ordered to give back his win.
Quote: darkozToo bad for Phil Ivey this law wasn't in NJ.
BTW, the Borgata tried to stick him with ten times the amount claiming they wanted the expected losses from his play.
The judge denied that on the same principal. Losses cannot be determined as there is too much unknown as to actual outcome i.e. a player may have actually gotten lucky and won against expectation.
Ivey was only ordered to give back his win.
There are plenty of people in jail in one state for something that would be legal in another. Drug and gun laws vary greatly, and many states have different ages of consent laws, some of which conflict with federal law.
Yeah, I get the all that, but I'm trying to understand why you think he has a legitimate reason to sue them for damages.Quote: billryanWhat I think doesn't really matter when the law is already settled. I personally think the California law is too broad but that is irrelevant.
The law can be an ass at times and bad people can exploit it, but to find a person guilty takes more than a reasonable assumption.
Quote: AxelWolfYeah, I get the all that, but I'm trying to understand why you think he has a legitimate reason to sue them for damages.
To sue would require proving damages from the frivolous lawsuit.
I.e. the frivolous lawsuit about cheating at poker resulted in lost income due to it's slandering and libelous nature.
Which would require proving in court that the lawsuit was full of untruth by litigating in court the entire cheating accusation (and proving his innocence to show how the frivolous lawsuit damaged his reputation.)
So, um, what are the odds or point of proving the accusation of cheating is untrue when you just fought so hard to avoid defending it in the original trial
Since it's painfully obvious he used some type of device to cheat players out of their money in a casino, one would assume that is illegal. I can't imagine that would be considered frivolous.Quote: darkozTo sue would require proving damages from the frivolous lawsuit.
I.e. the frivolous lawsuit about cheating at poker resulted in lost income due to it's slandering and libelous nature.
Which would require proving in court that the lawsuit was full of untruth by litigating in court the entire cheating accusation (and proving his innocence to show how the frivolous lawsuit damaged his reputation.)
So, um, what are the odds or point of proving the accusation of cheating is untrue when you just fought so hard to avoid defending it in the original trial
Quote: SOOPOOIs Mike Postle banned from any casinos/poker rooms where real money poker is played? It is my understanding that without the knowledge of other players' cards he is NOT a particularly good player. So if you trust the room/casino you are playing in to be secure, wouldn't you WANT him as an opponent?
I could see casinos banning him for their own protection.
With Stones sued what casino would want to take the chance of a lawsuit if Postle had new accusations
Quote: AxelWolfSince it's painfully obvious he used some type of device to cheat players out of their money in a casino, one would assume that is illegal. I can't imagine that would be considered frivolous.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I stay in Holiday Inns but here is my thought on the matter.
In California, the courts have decided you can't sue someone over card games because there is no way to prove damages and for other reasons. Attorneys are supposed to know and follow the law. A case that is brought before the courts over card cheating has zero chance of going forward as the courts have made clear they won't entertain such cases. What can be more frivolous than a case that is dismissed at a preliminary hearing because of a lack of jurisdiction?
Did the man suffer damage because of this case? That seems pretty obvious. Even after it was dismissed, we have people here insisting he must be guilty of something. Is he damaged enough to get compensation from the courts? I don't know but if I were he I would certainly be examining going after the people who ruined my reputation.
Card players in California should be working to get legislation passed that allows people suspected of cheating to be held responsible, rather than chasing someone they can't win against.
Courts don't convict people because it's painfully obvious, nor because one can assume he did something illegal.
As I've said all along, this is my opinion. When I first read about this, I said I didn't think he had anything to worry about in court and that has been shown to be true.
I would think that with all the publicity involved here, the plaintiffs could have attracted a high profile attorney who actually knew the law if such an attorney thought there was a case to be made.
Quote: darkozTo sue would require proving damages from the frivolous lawsuit.
I.e. the frivolous lawsuit about cheating at poker resulted in lost income due to it's slandering and libelous nature.
Which would require proving in court that the lawsuit was full of untruth by litigating in court the entire cheating accusation (and proving his innocence to show how the frivolous lawsuit damaged his reputation.)
So, um, what are the odds or point of proving the accusation of cheating is untrue when you just fought so hard to avoid defending it in the original trial
I'm not sure about that. I think all he has to prove is that California has already said they won't entertain such cases, regardless of circumstances. That the defendants tied up the courts with a lawsuit that had zero chance of succeeding, regardless of the actual facts of the case.
This wasn't a matter of someone suing him and losing in court. This was the judge telling them they had no case to pursue.
Quote: billryanI'm not a lawyer, nor do I stay in Holiday Inns but here is my thought on the matter.
In California, the courts have decided you can't sue someone over card games because there is no way to prove damages and for other reasons. Attorneys are supposed to know and follow the law. A case that is brought before the courts over card cheating has zero chance of going forward as the courts have made clear they won't entertain such cases. What can be more frivolous than a case that is dismissed at a preliminary hearing because of a lack of jurisdiction?
Did the man suffer damage because of this case? That seems pretty obvious. Even after it was dismissed, we have people here insisting he must be guilty of something. Is he damaged enough to get compensation from the courts? I don't know but if I were he I would certainly be examining going after the people who ruined my reputation.
Card players in California should be working to get legislation passed that allows people suspected of cheating to be held responsible, rather than chasing someone they can't win against.
Courts don't convict people because it's painfully obvious, nor because one can assume he did something illegal.
As I've said all along, this is my opinion. When I first read about this, I said I didn't think he had anything to worry about in court and that has been shown to be true.
I would think that with all the publicity involved here, the plaintiffs could have attracted a high profile attorney who actually knew the law if such an attorney thought there was a case to be made.
I just don't agree with your assessment of the lawyer's duties as you say being frivolous.
The court system is both sides cite laws on the books. I am certain that the plaintiff attorneys didn't respond to the motion to dismiss with "yep, judge we got nothing"
What most likely happened was they gave motion in answer (not sure what they probably call it) explaining their reasons why the law is on their side.
They probably used other case law to back up their counter motions.
It is then up to the judge to interpret both sides argument and make a ruling.
Motions to dismiss occur on many court cases. Attorneys use past precedent and laws on the books (sometimes contradictory) to end cases all the time.
The simple fact a motion to dismiss was prevailed does not make the case frivolous. It's just normal course. And all cases are determined based on the law so the judge making his decision on the law doesn't make it frivolous either.
Quote: darkoz
What most likely happened was they gave motion in answer (not sure what they probably call it) explaining their reasons why the law is on their side.
They probably used other case law to back up their counter motions.
It is then up to the judge to interpret both sides argument and make a ruling.
Motions to dismiss occur on many court cases. Attorneys use past precedent and laws on the books (sometimes contradictory) to end cases all the time.
The simple fact a motion to dismiss was prevailed does not make the case frivolous. It's just normal course. And all cases are determined based on the law so the judge making his decision on the law doesn't make it frivolous either.
It's just called an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, sometimes called Memorandum in Opposition. Here are all the court filings for anyone who wants to read them:
https://mbvesq.com/e-d-cal-litigation
The referenced filing is a Rule 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, which is, "Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted," and can encompass all sorts of different things. One example is if a court lacks jurisdiction over the case, then the other side can file a Rule 12 (b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
Here is a direct link to the Dismissal Order granting the Motion to Dismiss:
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/5897a2bd-362d-4d22-90e8-22329f7a3206/downloads/DE%20063%20-%20Ordering%20Granting%20Defendant_s%20Motion%20.pdf?ver=1591217961298
Cliffnotes version is that California civil courts generally do not rule on anything that arises out of gambling, whether the gambling is itself legal or illegal, and also that any damages would be purely speculative because (even if he had been cheating---which he certainly was) there is no way to gauge an exact amount of damages.
You may be able to sue for Malicious Prosecution if
1)You were sued and won, and
2)did the plaintiff have an unreasonable expectation of winning, and
3) you were damaged.
Quote: billryanFrom the internet
You may be able to sue for Malicious Prosecution if
1)You were sued and won, and
2)did the plaintiff have an unreasonable expectation of winning, and
3) you were damaged.
Aside from that being malicious versus frivolous, the importance is the "and". All three have to be present to pursue malicious prosecution.
Postle would have to prove damages
And that most likely will go to showing how he cannot play poker any longer and why.
And here we go again with him having to speak openly in court to the accusations that were made.
I don't see him fighting to do that!
Quote: darkozAside from that being malicious versus frivolous, the importance is the "and". All three have to be present to pursue malicious prosecution.
Postle would have to prove damages
And that most likely will go to showing how he cannot play poker any longer and why.
And here we go again with him having to speak openly in court to the accusations that were made.
I don't see him fighting to do that!
I'd point to the posts in this thread as proof that my clients reputation has been damaged. He was cleared of all charges but everyone still says he is guilty.
Quote: billryanI'd point to the posts in this thread as proof that my clients reputation has been damaged. He was cleared of all charges but everyone still says he is guilty.
Two things
Just like gambling losses are difficult to quantify so are reputation loss.
He would have to prove monetary cost damage. How was he affected monetarily? Again loss of poker play due to accusation of cheating.
Once the accusation of cheating comes up defense has opening to question those accusation and provide evidence why it was a legit charge
In other words the cheating accusations will be discussed and analyzed in court.
Probably not what postle wants imo
Finally you made the wrong claim above that he was cleared of all charges. He was cleared of nothing. The dismissal basically means regardless of whether he cheated or not California law prohibits seeking damages. That's a huge difference.
This would be dangerous as (like defamation) would open up Postle to a trial on whether he really did cheat as part of seeing if there are damages. He got off Scott free and it would be risky to try to double down in this way.Quote: billryanI'd point to the posts in this thread as proof that my clients reputation has been damaged. He was cleared of all charges but everyone still says he is guilty.
Quote: darkozTwo things
Just like gambling losses are difficult to quantify so are reputation loss.
He would have to prove monetary cost damage. How was he affected monetarily? Again loss of poker play due to accusation of cheating.
Once the accusation of cheating comes up defense has opening to question those accusation and provide evidence why it was a legit charge
In other words the cheating accusations will be discussed and analyzed in court.
Probably not what postle wants imo
Finally you made the wrong claim above that he was cleared of all charges. He was cleared of nothing. The dismissal basically means regardless of whether he cheated or not California law prohibits seeking damages. That's a huge difference.
The case is over. He was cleared. He won, they lost. People aren't found innocent, they are found not guilty. At trial, you win, you lose or you get a mistrial/hung jury. He didn't lose, and it wasn't a mistrial so he won.
In the real world, this never gets to court as the defendants will either settle or face devastating legal bills, and years of financial uncertainty.
If I were he, I'd be seeking an attorney to go after these people. Maybe you are right, and an attorney will advise me not to go on with it, but then I'd get a second opinion. Throw a rock at me, I'll throw a hand grenade at you.
Don't pick fights but when you find yourself in one, act like you are the third monkey in line for Noahs Ark and it is starting to rain.
Quote: billryanThe case is over. He was cleared. He won, they lost. People aren't found innocent, they are found not guilty. At trial, you win, you lose or you get a mistrial/hung jury. He didn't lose, and it wasn't a mistrial so he won.
In the real world, this never gets to court as the defendants will either settle or face devastating legal bills, and years of financial uncertainty.
If I were he, I'd be seeking an attorney to go after these people. Maybe you are right, and an attorney will advise me not to go on with it, but then I'd get a second opinion. Throw a rock at me, I'll throw a hand grenade at you.
Don't pick fights but when you find yourself in one, act like you are the third monkey in line for Noahs Ark and it is starting to rain.
He wasn't cleared. He won by default due to a specific law.
If anything, the case was decided without prejudice. That means it's free to be litigated again if cause can be found.
Postle has more to be concerned about the plaintiffs lawyers researching their options to see if there is a way forward with a new claim than any aspects of malicious prosecution from Postle
Quote: billryanI'd point to the posts in this thread as proof that my clients reputation has been damaged. He was cleared of all charges but everyone still says he is guilty.
I thought he was, "Guilty," which is just to say he cheated...long before any civil case was ever filed.
Quote: darkozHe wasn't cleared. He won by default due to a specific law.
If anything, the case was decided without prejudice. That means it's free to be litigated again if cause can be found.
Postle has more to be concerned about the plaintiffs lawyers researching their options to see if there is a way forward with a new claim than any aspects of malicious prosecution from Postle
Have you bothered to read the article? The case against Postle is over, barring an appeal. The case against the others can be revisited but not against Postle. Unless, of course, the article has it wrong.
Quote: billryanHave you bothered to read the article? The case against Postle is over, barring an appeal. The case against the others can be revisited but not against Postle. Unless, of course, the article has it wrong.
Yes I read it.
"Barring an appeal"
Those last three words can be might pesky
Furthermore it states that the case may be continued against stones. If that happens successfully it becomes even harder to claim malicious or frivolous prosecution.
ivey lost on appeals too and gave $ back?Quote: darkozToo bad for Phil Ivey this law wasn't in NJ.
BTW, the Borgata tried to stick him with ten times the amount claiming they wanted the expected losses from his play.
The judge denied that on the same principal. Losses cannot be determined as there is too much unknown as to actual outcome i.e. a player may have actually gotten lucky and won against expectation.
Ivey was only ordered to give back his win.
(i see him playing poker tournaments again)
