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

AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 146
  • Posts: 18247
Thanks for this post from:
ksdjdj
June 3rd, 2020 at 4:25:11 PM permalink
https://www.pokernews.com/news/2020/06/plaintiffs-case-against-mike-postle-dismissed-by-judge-37385.htm
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 172
  • Posts: 9611
June 3rd, 2020 at 4:31:37 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

https://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.
sabre
sabre
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 892
Thanks for this post from:
AxelWolf
June 3rd, 2020 at 4:35:54 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

Postle should go after the people who tried to take this to court.



uh, wat? Dude is guilty as sin.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 146
  • Posts: 18247
June 3rd, 2020 at 4:59:38 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

Postle should go after the people who tried to take this to court.

Explain 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.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 172
  • Posts: 9611
June 3rd, 2020 at 5:27:01 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Explain 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.
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1864
June 3rd, 2020 at 5:30:21 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

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.



Judge didnít say it was a frivolous lawsuit. And I donít see any law that would allow Postle to recover against the plaintiffs. So if the law is all that matters (which is a position Iíd be surprised that you apply consistently based on your posts) then thereís no case.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 78
  • Posts: 894
June 3rd, 2020 at 5:31:02 PM permalink
I voted "... bullsh*t" but if there was an option for something like the following below, then I would have voted for at least one of those too.

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"
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 78
  • Posts: 894
June 3rd, 2020 at 5:44:48 PM permalink
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").
sabre
sabre
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 892
June 3rd, 2020 at 7:30:35 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

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.



The article lol didn't say that.
gordonm888
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 2605
June 3rd, 2020 at 7:50:54 PM permalink
There 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 many better men, a few of them friends, were dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I.

  • Jump to: