Alleged poker cheat Mike Postle is currently facing two new motions in relation to the massive cheating scandal involving him and Stones Gambling Hall, which erupted in September 2019.
The plaintiffs in two separate multi-million lawsuits against Postle are now seeking sanctions over the defendant’s alleged violation of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, owing to his use of “one or more ghostwriters” in filing his motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs are also contesting a series of arguments presented by Postle in his filing.
The latest motions were filed on Tuesday, April 28, by Maurice “Mac” VerStandig, lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Seek Sanctions                    
The first of the two motions recently filed by the plaintiffs accuses Postle of having his court documents written by somebody else. Up to this day, Postle has been acting as his own attorney, meaning he is dealing with the lawsuits without any legal counsel. But his motion to dismiss, filed in March, tells otherwise.
In the first filing, VerStandig alleges that it was not Postle who authored his motion, citing a significantly similar motion filed by Sacramento lawyer William Portanova in a separate case. Distinct similarities were identified between Portanova’s motion and Postle’s documents, which include verbatim language and case law. Postle’s motion also includes an “undersigned counsel”, which contradicts the fact that he is currently representing himself in the case.
The plaintiffs argue that while it is not entirely illegal for pro se litigants to use extra resources such as Google Scholar to make legal arguments, the motion filed by Postle was unusually perfect, considering that he has no legal background and formal law training to come up with precisely written arguments.
VerStandig argues there is no doubt that Postle sought the help of one or more unidentified attorneys in crafting his motion. The ghostwriter may or may not be Portanova, but the act in itself is sanctionable.
The plaintiffs want Postle’s motion to dismiss be struck from the record, and have him appear with his actual counsel, or simply continue acting as his own attorney. The other defendants in the case, including Stones Gambling Hall and its tournament director Justin Kuraitis, are not included in the latest appeal for sanctions filed by the plaintiffs.
In the second court filing, the plaintiffs are responding to Postle arguments, including his claim that under California law, one cannot be sued for negligence. This has been debunked by the plaintiffs, saying Postle cheated in a casino and therefore he has a liability to the players he cheated.
The plaintiffs also presented multiple case law examples, countering Postle’s argument regarding unjust enrichment. Lastly, the latest filing answers Postle’s claim that the plaintiffs are unable to present enough evidence to support their action.
Case Background
In September 2019, poker player and former Stones commentator Veronica Brill posted a series of tweets, alleging that one player had been cheating during livestreamed cash games at the California casino. The player was later identified to be Postle.
The expose rocked the world of poker and led to two massive lawsuits against Postle, Stones Gambling Hall, and its Tournament Director Justin Kuraitis, who was also accused of acting as Postle’s “confederate” in the alleged cheating.
As an immediate response to the accusations, Stones suspended all its livestreamed cash games and launched a thorough investigation. The venue later said its investigation found no evidence of cheating. It filed a motion to dismiss in March, denying any liability in the matter. Postle meanwhile has been evading the media since last year, and was accused of dodging court summons.
In late March, Postle’s motion to dismiss was published in an affiliate site, but it was widely believed it was he himself who leaked his own documents.
The new motions filed by the plaintiffs will now be up for consideration by the court. We will continue to bring the latest updates in this ongoing saga. Postle or Portanova has yet to respond to the latest filings.