Mike Postle Poker
Aug 15, 2020 The biggest story of the most recent year had to be the cheating scandal involving Mike Postle at Stones Gambling Hall in California. Video evidence seemed to indicate Postle’s ability to see his opponents’ cards, and upon discovery several players filed suit in federal court. Dec 25, 2019 Before that, Mike Postle was a name known only to a small group of regulars paying attention to the cash game scene at Stones Gambling Hall in Citrus Heights, California, just outside of Sacramento.
Table Of Contents
On Wednesday, June 3, United States District Judge William B. Shubb granted motions to dismiss filed by King’s Casino (parent company to Stones Gambling Hall), Justin Kuraitis, and Mike Postle.
The massive decision stands as the biggest development so far in the high-profile cheating case that dominated the poker world last fall in which Postle was alleged to have profited around $250,000 in live-streamed cash games at Stones through nefarious but never proven means.
According to court documents obtained by PokerNews via Pacer, the judge sided with the argument put forth by King’s that the plaintiffs' various claims were “not cognizable under California law because California public policy bars judicial intervention in gambling disputes, in part because the asserted damages are inherently speculative” as laid out in Kelly v. First Astri Corp.
While some of the charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they're settled barring an appeal, the door was left cracked on some, so an amended complaint can still be filed by the plaintiffs who took the case to court last October.
Unfortunately for those who wished to see Postle punished for his alleged cheating, the charges against him fell into the former category. At this time, there's no word on whether an appeal will be filed.
A request for sanctions against Postle for allegedly underhanded legal work was also dismissed.
Mac VerStandig, attorney for the plaintiffs, indicated his disappointment with the ruling in a statement to PokerNews:
'We are in the process of reviewing the judge’s orders, and are appreciative he clearly devoted great time and thought to his rulings. While I am of course disappointed Mr. Postle has been let out of this litigation, I trust that disappointment pales compared to that of Stones Gambling Hall, which made the arguments that permitted Mr. Postle to exit the case.'
Postle has not responded to PokerNews' request for comment at time of publication.
Postle Dismissal Predicated on California Gambling Law
Judge Shubb's granting of Postle's motion to dismiss was predicated squarely upon a California law that specifically addresses gambling losses.
Shubb wrote that 'monies lost to Mr. Postle' and 'the loss of opportunity to earn monies through honest games of poker' are 'quintessential gambling losses that are barred for recovery by California public policy.'
'Today, the California state legislature still has not created a statutory right to permit individuals to recover their gambling losses, although other states have done so.'
'Accordingly, California’s strong public policy against judicial resolution of civil claims arising out of gambling disputes mandates the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims against Postle for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment,' Shubb wrote.
Shubb relied on the aforementioned case, which dates from 1999.
“Today, the California state legislature still has not created a statutory right to permit individuals to recover their gambling losses, although other states have done so.'
A further charge that Postle's cheating violated Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) due to his alleged use of wire transmissions was dismissed because “gambling losses are not sufficient injury to business or property for RICO standing.”
As for Postle's alleged legal indiscretions, the judge simply dismissed them out of hand. The plaintiffs sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule 11”) after alleging Postle used an attorney ghostwriter to author his motion to dismiss when he was purportedly representing himself.
“Regardless of whether Postle had his ghostwritten by that attorney or cut and pasted from the brief his attorney filed in that prior case, the court sees no reason to impose sanctions here,” a four-page ruling read. “It is therefore ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions be, and the same hereby is, denied.”
Stones, Kuraitis in Clear as Well
Judge Shubb dismissed all of the claims against the venue and the house tournament director, who also headed the livestreaming operation as well.
Allegations of fraud, according to Shubb, lacked specificity:
'They do not allege the cost of the rake during each game, let alone what they contributed individually. Instead, they offer nothing more than a general allegation that the rake amounted to 'tens of thousands of dollars during the life of Mr. Postle’s scheme.'
Claims of constructive fraud, which require a fiduciary or confidential relationship, were attacked by Stones when it contended the venue 'did not owe a general duty' to gamblers, a claim with which the judge apparently agreed. The lack of special relationship between players and venue also led to dismissal of negligence claims.
Mike Postle Poker
Mike Postle Poker Hat
As for negligent misrepresentation, the judge targeted the plaintiffs' failure to disclose the identity of Postle's alleged accomplice.
A libel claim from Veronica Brill, stemming from Stones tweet calling her accusations against Postle 'completely fabricated,' was dismissed on the grounds that it can't be proven the tweet was directed at her since dozens of others participated in the suit.
Similar fraud and negligence accusations against Kuraitis were dismissed on similar grounds.
Case Expected to Continue in Some Fashion
VerStandig expressed his dismay with the dismissal to PokerNews:
'In 1851, California established a precedent of not permitting litigation related to claims stemming from card games,' he said. 'It is a policy with which I do not agree in this day and age of legalized gaming, and one I am disappointed a legal gaming parlor would rely upon. But I am also heartened the court has acknowledged that our claims to recover the rake collected by Stones potentially fall outside the contours of that policy.'
Mike Postle Poker Lawsuit
Judge Shubb did leave open the possibility of hearing an amended complaint on several of the charges. Notably, fraud and negligent misrepresentation by Stones and negligence by Kuraitis are among them. Chiefly, it seems as VerStandig said, the rake can be specified and potentially recovered.
However, that won't be enough to satisfy many onlookers and Brill herself, who tweeted her disgust in the aftermath of the news:
Just letting the poker community know that if you decide to cheat on a live stream you are free to do so. There wil… https://t.co/rI3f990q0j
— Veronica BLM (@Angry_Polak)Expect the case to continue to play out with, at a minimum, an amended complaint.
'The court has given us leave to amend, and I anticipate we will avail ourselves of that right,' VerStandig said. 'The court’s opinion acknowledges the core viability of certain claims (obviously without making any judgment as to facts), and we look forward to restating those claims in a manner that will comport with the court’s order.'
However, any amended complaint will only be in regards to Stones and Kuraitis. In regards to this case, Postle will walk away scot-free barring an appeal.
Mike Postle Poker Hat
Tags
Mike PostlePoker and the LawLive casino poker
Mike Postle Poker Espn
Alleged poker cheat Mike Postle’s $330 million defamation lawsuit against several prominent members of the poker community hit a huge roadblock as he no longer has legal representation for the case and is now facing two anti-SLAPP lawsuits which would nix Postle’s countersuit.
Last month, Mac VerStandig, the attorney who represented the 88 plaintiffs in the original lawsuit surrounding the cheating allegations, brought to light the fact that Postle’s lawyer, Steven T. Lowe of the Beverly Hills law firm Lowe & Associates, filed paperwork in December to drop Postle as a client.
Judge Richard K Sueyoshi was scheduled to make a ruling on the motion Jan. 14. The following day, poker pro Todd Witteles, who is a defendant in Postle’s defamation lawsuit, tweeted that Sueyoshi granted Lowe’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
Based on the phrasing used by Lowe in the motion, Witteles’ attorney, Eric Bensomochan said that the likely reason for the move was a lack of payment. He was on Witteles’ podcast shortly after VerStandig tweeted the motion and said that with a lawsuit of this size, even a sizable retainer of $15,000-$20,000 could be used up within a couple of weeks.
This leaves Postle without representation for his nine-figure suit against many who spoke out on the topic of whether Postle cheated. He was accused of cheating in a low-stakes live-streamed poker game at Stones Gambling Hall in the Sacramento area. He reportedly won upwards of $250,000 playing almost exclusively in $1-$3 and $2-$5 no-limit hold’em cash games over roughly an 18-month time span between 2018 and 2019.
VerStandig filed a $30 million suit against Postle, the ownership group of Stones Gambling Hall and Stones’ Tournament Director Justin Kuraitis, who was also in charge of the livestream and who many believed to be Postle’s accomplice in the scheme. The charges against Postle were eventually dismissed and most plaintiffs accepted a settlement for the remaining charges against Kuraitis and Stones.
After Postle was free of the charges, he launched a countersuit against anyone who commented on the allegations. He filed a defamation and libel lawsuit against Witteles, whistleblower and former Stones employee Veronica Brill, six-time World Series of Poker bracelet winner Daniel Negreanu, high-stakes gambler Haralabos Voulgaris, poker personality Joey Ingram, as well as ESPN, Poker News media, Upswing Poker, Run It Once, Crush Live Poker, Solve For Why and Poker Coaching, which are run by poker pros Doug Polk, Phil Galfond, Bart Hanson, Matt Berkey and Jonathan Little, respectively.
Brill And Witteles File Anti-SLAPP Suits
In the face of the libel suit, Witteles and Brill both filed anti-SLAPP motions against Postle, which will be difficult to fight without a legal team behind him.
SLAPP is an acronym for strategic lawsuits against public participation. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, SLAPPs have become a tool used by some to intimidate and silence criticism through an expensive and baseless legal process.
Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to protect people, who are simply exercising their right to free speech, from these proceedings. In most situations, the defendant of a case will move to dismiss it unless the plaintiff can prove that they will prevail in the suit. Postle would have to provide evidence to show that he could receive a verdict in his favor or the case would be dismissed and the plaintiff would be forced to pay attorney fees for the defendants.
Both Brill and Witteles are using Postle’s career as a professional poker player and his appearances on Stones’ livestream to argue that he became a public figure, which heightens the standards for Postle to prove libel as he would need to prove that the defendants acted in malice.
Mike Postle Poker Wikipedia
“Stones Hall’s ‘broadcast team did its best to turn him into a poker celebrity. They created a series of graphics designed to hype his talents,’ including showing ‘Postle’s face superimposed over that of Jesus,’” wrote Brill’s legal team in the filing.
Brill is being represented by Las Vegas-based lawyers Marc J. Randazza and Alex J. Shepard, while Wittlees is represented by Beverly Hills-based Bensomochan. Witteles’ anti-SLAPP motion will be heard by Judge David Brown in a Sacramento Superior Court on Feb. 10. Brill’s motion will be heard by Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi the following day.
