Mike Postle In More Trouble After Plaintiffs Allege He Used Ghostwriters

The plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit against alleged cheater Mike Postle have filed two new motions this week. This is the latest development in the ongoing cheating saga involving Postle and California card room, Stones Gambling Hall.

The fresh motions were filed on April 28, by noted gaming attorney Maurice “Mac” VerStandig, who represents the plaintiffs.

In the first document, the plaintiffs want Postle to be sanctioned for violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, relating to his alleged use of a ghostwriter in crafting his motion to dismiss which was filed on March 25.

The latest filing alleges that Postle’s court papers were written by one or more unidentified attorneys, despite previous declaration by the defendant that he would be representing himself in the case. By allegedly signing and filing court documents that he has not written himself, Postle violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The filing makes reference to a largely similar motion previously filed by William Portanova in another case. Postle allegedly used the same case law and verbatim language in his own motion.

Furthermore, an “undersigned counsel” was also spotted in Postle’s document, which is misleading, since the player already stated that he would be representing himself. Portanova’s name was linked to Postle back in October 2019 when he was reported to be representing the alleged poker cheater. The lawyer later denied that he was representing Postle in the civil case.

The motion accuses Postle of using one or more ghostwriters in the case, as a person without any formal law education or legal training could not have written such perfect motion on his own. The plaintiffs are now seeking to have Postle’s filings struck from the record and want him to deal with the case with his actual lawyer, or by himself, as he earlier claimed.

Plaintiffs Respond to Postle’s Motion To Dismiss

The second court filing counters Postle’s arguments in his motion to dismiss. The player stated that under Californian law, a person cannot be sued for negligence. The plaintiffs responded by saying that Postle cheated and the he can indeed be held liable to his cheating victims, based on numerous case law examples, which also debunk Postle’s idea of unjust enrichment in California.

The filing also responded to Postle’s claim that the original complaint lacks enough justification or evidence to prove that cheating really occurred. The plaintiffs argue that their 54-page filing contains adequate proof of Postle’s misconduct, and that the more specific details can be presented during an actual trial.

As of this writing, there has been no response yet from Postle or Portanova.