Plaintiffs in a case filed against poker player Mike Postle in a cheating case want sanctions against the defendant. They suggest that even though Postle is appearing as his own counsel, someone else is writing his filings.

Plaintiffs respond to protests from Postle

The lawsuit names Mike Postle alongside Justin Kuraitis and King’s Casino LLC, the parent firm of Stones Gambling Hall, as co-defendants in the case. Maurice “Mac” B. Verstandig, the counsel of the plaintiff filed two documents in court on April 28. It includes a motion to bring sanctions against Postle relating to the documents that he filed in the court and a counter to his motion for dismissal.

Postle has an incredible winning streak which was highlighted in the Stones Live streams. The case has been ongoing since October 2018 when at least 25 players sued Postle, Kuraitis, and King’s Casino for cheating during the games. The games were played for cash at the Stones Gambling Hall. Now, at least 100 plaintiffs are connected with the suit.

He allegedly cheated in sessions running between July 2018 and September 2019. His modus operandi of cheating is unknown but it is said that he used some type of electronic device. A partner was involved with him during the game and he was relaying his opponents’ cards to Postle.

Ghostwriting accusations against Postle

Another complaint by the plaintiffs is that Postle is using legal documents written by someone else, signed by himself. He is representing his case in court. The plaintiffs have cited Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

The filing alleges,

“Unfortunately, it now appears his approach to this litigation is identical, as he purports to be a pro se litigant but is, in fact, having his court papers ghostwritten by one or more unidentified attorneys.”

The filing compares Postle’s motion of dismissal to a similar filing by William Portanova in a separate case. Portanova claimed to be Postle’s lawyer in October 2019 and then reiterated his statements in December. He later backtracked his claim and said that he is a criminal lawyer and Postle’s case was a civil one.

The plaintiffs have also contested the defendant’s motion to dismiss, suggesting that he is inherently liable for other players’ losses. Postle suggests that he cannot be sued for negligence. He also noted that the plaintiffs had not met specific requirements while accusing him of cheating.