Defendants in Mike Postle Cheating Scandal Give Oral Arguments
Judge William B. Shubb allowed defendants Mike Postle (pictured, left), Stones Gambling Hall, and tournament director Justin Kuraitis (pictured, right) to defend their motions earlier this week to dismiss a multi-million dollar civil lawsuit filed against them arising from the biggest cheating scandal to hit livestreamed poker.
The oral arguments shed some light on the major points in the case, and also highlighted the complexities of the game itself, which posed a major challenge for VerStandig as the judge admitted he has little knowledge on how things work at the poker tables.
Hearing Tackles Alleged Damages
Among the main points contested in the hearing was the issue about damages. Mao and Pachter maintained that gambling losses are too speculative, and that the plaintiffs failed to provide specific, concrete proof to support their claims that cheating actually occurred.
VerStandig argued they were able to determine the damages by calculating the rake, and reviewing livestream footage and hand replays. Judge Shubb seemed confused at this point, and VerStandig was compelled to explain further, providing more clarity on how software and technology can enable cheating, such as the case involving Postle and his alleged confederate, where confidential info was allegedly transmitted from the production booth to Postle’s mobile phone.
The gaming attorney also insisted they have full details in relation to the players and the hands involved, to prove that cheating took place, but responses from the judge indicated he had little understanding of the game’s technicalities. He maintained that a clear layout of damages should be presented. VerStandig said it will be explained further later in the process.
Mao and Pachter also insisted that there’s no precedent to support the lawsuit and that previous case laws show gambling losses don’t have a legal remedy.
No Substantial Words From Mike Postle
Interestingly, Mike Postle chose to stay silent throughout the hearing. At the beginning, when Judge Shubb asked Postle if he understood the arguments in his motion to dismiss, the player simply said he’d do the best he could.
Later, when the judge gave him the chance to answer the plaintiffs’ claims and defend his arguments, Postle only replied with a guarded statement, “I’m good for now“. It’s actually a wise move for him, as the proceedings required a high level of legal understanding, and admittedly, Postle has no legal background whatsoever to be able to correctly answer tough questions from the judge.
Arguments from all parties are now being considered by the judge, with a ruling out at a future date.