Poker Coverage: Poker Legislation Poker Tournaments U.S. Poker Markets Sports Betting

Alleged Poker Cheater Mike Postle Sues Poker Community For Libel And Defamation

Poker Pariah Files Suit Against Whistleblower Veronica Brill, Daniel Negreanu, Doug Polk, Phil Galfond, And Other Prominent Members Of Poker Community

Print-icon
 

The case against alleged poker cheat Mike Postle was dismissed in early June with the majority of plaintiffs agreeing to a settlement with the Stones Gambling Hall and its tournament director Justin Kuraitis, who was in charge of the livestream.

Now, Postle is starting a legal battle of his own, suing many prominent names in poker for libel and defamation.

Professional poker player and outspoken critic of Postle, Todd Witteles tweeted a screenshot of the suit Thursday night.

In addition to Witteles, Postle has filed suit against former Stones employee Veronica Brill, who brought the allegations to light a year ago, six-time WSOP bracelet winner Daniel Negreanu, high-stakes gambler Haralabos Voulgaris, poker personality Joey Ingram, as well as ESPN, Poker News media, and 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.

Despite his initial victory in court, Postle has been seen as guilty in the eyes of the majority of the poker public, many who have been outspoken in their belief that he cheated, most likely with the help of an accomplice. Theories on how it could have happened range from bone-conducting headphones in his hat, to hole card information sent to his phone, but so far, no one has been able to definitively prove Postle cheated outside of his statistically improbable winnings and seemingly near-perfect poker play.

The filing also lists John Does 1-1,000, which allows Postle’s legal team to add defendants as they move forward in the legal process. Essentially, anyone that made public statements affirming that Postle was cheating is listed as a defendant.

Galfond recently undertook an effort to compile every hand Postle played on the Stones livestreamed poker games to gather statistics that could help prove cheating occurred.

Postle filed the complaint in the Superior Court of California in Sacramento County. He is being represented by the high-profile Beverly Hills-based law firm Lowe & Associates, which specializes in entertainment and business law.

In a response to Witteles’ tweet, high-stakes mixed game pro Matt Glantz seemed shocked that the firm would take the case, tweeting, “He must have a family member or close friend who works for the firm.”

The complaint states that Postle is seeking damages and injunctive relief for defamation and slander, trade libel, false light, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A crowd-funding site was set up to hire legal representation for Brill, who was the first to accuse Postle. It met it’s $20,000 goal in less than eight hours.

 
 
 
 

Comments

oliveras19
21 days ago

THESE COMMENTS DO NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATE TO THIS MATTER. IN CERTIAN SITUATIONS CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE BROADCAST (PUBLISHED) COMMENTS VIA WRITINGS OR OVER THE AIRWAVES AND SOCIAL MEDIA HEARD BY HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF VIEWERS AND LISTENERS. SUCH CONTENT IS PERMANENTLY RECORDED. IN A DEFAMATION MATTER THE SUED PARTIES MUST PROVE THAT THEIR STATEMENTS MADE IF ANY WERE TRUE. EACH SUED PARTY MUST RETAIN ITS OWN LAWYER SINCE THERE MIGHT EXIST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONGST THE VARIOUS SUED PARTIES. THE COST OF DEFENSE COUNSEL CAN BE VERY SIGNIFICANT. SUCH TYPE OF CASE MAY INVOLVE NUMEROUS DEPOSITIONS AND VERY EXTENSIVE DISCOVERY. EACH COUNSEL WILL BE NOTICED TO ATTEND AND PARTIICIPATE IN THE DEPOSTIONS OF THE SUING PARTY AND ALL THE SUED PARTIES.

 
Reply
 

Brian15
21 days ago

"THE SUED PARTIES MUST PROVE THAT THEIR STATEMENTS MADE IF ANY WERE TRUE", no actually, while truth is an absolute defense in a defamation case, it is the plaintiff in a defamation case that must show that the statements were false and that the defendants knew or should have known they were false (and this is a massive hurdle in this case from what I've seen).

 
Reply
 

oliveras19
20 days ago

THERE ARE MANY PARTIES ALREADY PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND PROBABLY MORE TO BE INCLUDED. THE LEGAL COST FOR EACH PARTY WILL BE ENORMOUS. THIS CASE MIGHT DRAG ON FOR MANY MANY MONTHS. THE JUDGE WILL HAVE TO MICRO-MANAGE THIS CASE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES NOT DRAG ON FOREVER.

 
Reply