Attorneys Slam Motion to Dismiss by Mike Postle
The story with more twists and turns than we ever anticipated continues. Welcome to Chapter 428 – or something like that – of the Mike Postle saga.
The most recent chapter was a new twist, as a PR firm has been doing work for Mike Postle. At the very least, Orndee PR bought a web domain for Postle. The site has only three pages, each one dedicated to misconstruing or straight-out lying about court cases in which he’s been involved. That cooperation between Postle and Ornee PR’s founder and director Alexandrea Merrell provided some clarity to the help she had been suspected of providing Postle.
That article prompted Merrell to try to clarify via Twitter than Postle is not a client of Orndee PR. “The domain was donated to Mr. Postle back in May,” she wrote. But she pretended that my article then prompted her to offer to help Postle “completely pro bono.” That had already been happening, though, because she admitted to giving him a website domain…for free. That’s what a donation is.
But I digress.
Postle’s most recent official court filing is the subject of this most recent chapter. The attorneys for the clients in that case each filed oppositions to Postle’s recent motion. And those attorneys had a few things to say.
Background to Involuntary Bankruptcy Filing
Let’s keep this brief. My previous articles provide ample information about every filing. For now…
-Postle appeared to have cheated in a livestreamed poker game at Stones Gambling Hall…for months.
-Veronica Brill and dozens of other players sued Postle.
-The inability to show forensic evidence of cheating prompted the case to end in a meager settlement.
-Postle thought he won. He didn’t.
-Postle sued Brill and many others in the poker business for defamation.
-Two defendants (Brill and Todd Witteles) filed anti-SLAPP motions.
-Postle failed to secure an attorney and dropped the case.
-Brill and Witteles won their anti-SLAPP motions by default.
-Judge awarded more than $25K each to Brill and Witteles, due from Postle.
-Brill and Witteles attorneys file a US Bankruptcy Court petition to force Postle to go bankrupt or pay.
-Postle filed a motion to dismiss based on irrelevant grievances, mostly against Brill’s attorney.
That brings us to today, September 29, when attorneys Alex Shepard of Randazza Legal Group (on behalf of Brill) and Eric Bensamochan (on behalf of Witteles) each filed oppositions to Postle’s motion to dismiss.
Bensamochan Opposition
Witteles’ attorney filed his opposition to Postle’s motion to make clear his goal: to get Postle to pay the money that the court rightfully awarded to his client.
The introduction to the filing noted that Postle “tried to abuse the legal system for his own selfish ends and now that he is facing the consequences of that decision, he is portraying himself as a poor, innocent victim.” He noted that Postle’s motion was “highly emotionally charged” from a person who is “willing to litigate the smallest issues endlessly.” With that in mind, the involuntary bankruptcy will allow a Chapter 7 trustee to administer any assets to benefit Postle’s creditors.
He also noted that Postle’s argument to dismiss based on the number of creditors has not been vetted. If Postle has more than 12 creditors, according to a particular bankruptcy rule, the court must allow for all creditors to join the petition before a hearing. While Postle did provide a list of creditors…hold that thought…
Sheppard Opposition
This document is harsher than that from Bensamochan, probably because Postle has spent pages and pages of court documents going after co-counsel Marc Randazza. This opposition to the motion begins without pulling any punches. Regarding Postle’s motion:
“It is wrong on the facts and law and does not even say anything about the creditors in this matter. It is nothing more than a bizarre screed written by someone with a personal grudge against Attorney Randazza.”
A few paragraphs in, Sheppard objects to Postle’s claim that the bankruptcy filing was in bad faith.
“It is true that Mr. Randazza does not like Postle. Postle cheats at cards, has battered his ex-wife, and seems fixated on Mr. Randazza rather than his own actions. Nevertheless, unless directly working on this case, Mr. Randazza can barely recall Postle’s name. Mr. Randazza resides rent free in Postle’s head, not vice versa.”
Ouch.
Back to that list of creditors, Sheppard clarifies that the 12-creditor rule is not grounds for dismissal, only for more creditors to join in the festivities. Even if the court would consider that as grounds, Sheppard claimed that Postle “cooked the books to ensure that he could come up with more than 12 creditors, as a perfunctory review of his credit report shows some glaring inconsistencies.”
With that credit report attached to the filing, Sheppard maintains that some of the debts Postle listed were not included on the credit report. Further, two of the debts don’t even seem to be valid at all, as Southwest and Amazon aren’t banks.
In the end, Sheppard maintained that Postle’s motion is “legally meritless and amounts to little more than an opportunity for Postle to air his grievances against Mr. Randazza.”
Again, ouch.
The hearing on the motion is set for October 12.
Disclaimer: This author is not a lawyer and has virtually zero qualifications to analyze legal documents or arguments. Nevertheless, she persists.
