Postle Files 133-Page Court Brief and Brill Responds
The latest in the Mike Postle scandal/drama/situation is a war of words. One person may not have brought a fully-functional weapon to the fight.
Over the past month, new documents and revelations continued in the case of Michael Postle vs Veronica Brill, Todd Witteles, ESPN, PokerNews, et al. While Postle attempted to drop everything on April 1 by filing a motion for dismissal without prejudice, it wasn’t that simple. As he found out, his defamation charges that resulted in anti-SLAPP motions from Brill and Witteles were still alive. And by Postle dropping his case, it automatically granted victory to anti-SLAPP filers. Both then filed to mandate that Postle pay their legal fees.
On May 12, Judge Shama Mesiwala ruled for Witteles and ordered Postle to pay him $26,982 in legal fees. The next hearing was to be on May 19 regarding Brill’s legal fees, but the court rescheduled it to June 16. That will be this Wednesday.
Postle attempted to submit a massive supplemental brief to the court prior to that hearing, but the court rejected his submission due to improper formatting. At the same time, Sabina Johnson spoke out as the ex-wife of Postle to provide some insight into his friends, transactions, alleged abuse and threats, and his labeling of himself as “the fleecer.”
Here is the link https://t.co/HrDBGWxoR5
— Veronica Brill (@Angry_Polak) June 6, 2021
It seems that Postle resubmitted his 331-page document properly. And Brill responded with a succinct clap-back. Let’s get into it.
Postle’s Revenge Brief
It is true that Postle’s supplemental brief contained 331 pages. However, only 15 of those pages contained the actual brief. The remainder consisted of supporting documents.
It’s easy to divide the brief into two sections.
The first was clearly written by an attorney. Mike Postle, who couldn’t even spell “supplemental” correctly on the filed document, probably didn’t write about Brill’s attorney, Marc Randazza, “perverting the course of justice.” He probably didn’t know anything about the “collateral source rule.” And he most likely did not call Randazza’s billing statement a “weighty recitation of his accomplishments and recognitions.”
Just sayin’.
Not that speculation plays a significant role here, but one could – if they wanted to – speculate that Alexandrea Merrell of the HONR Network wrote it. She would likely be well-versed in the kind of anti-Randazza websites and articles referenced in the document, as she seems to have experience in trying to discredit the controversial attorney. Of course, Randazza did represent Alex Jones, a known conspiracy theorists who used his media platforms to claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was fake. And it was a Sandy Hook parent who started the HONR Network. However, it seems that Merrell could be – speculatively speaking – using this case as a means to discredit Randazza.
(Author’s note: In a condescending midnight message to me, Merrell claimed she is “not familiar with anti-Randazza websites” and has “NEVER worked to discredit Mr. Randazza.”)
The other section of Postle’s brief was clearly written by Postle himself. For example, when he targets Brill with accusations of targeting male poker players with sexual harassment and assault claims, Postle’s language is evident. He wrote, “She went from a thousand followers on social media to more than 14k almost overnight.” (Objection. Irrelevant.) An attorney did not write that.
He also likely wrote statements like, “I get that life isn’t fair, but I don’t understand how someone can be allowed to use the internet to destroy a person’s life without consequence.”
Finally, Postle’s brief ends with a diatribe that seems rooted in misogyny and a deep misunderstanding of the last two years of legal wrangling.
“Mr. Brill should be held accountable for the ongoing harassment and defamation that has had far reaching consequences for myself and my family. Withdrawing from a case that I feel certain could be easily proven, a case that winning might not regain all that I have lost, but would at least feel like a degree of justice was received, was devastating. But I didn’t feel that I had a choice. I understand that we aren’t trying her actions in this forum.”
If you're bored this weekend you can read Mike Postle's supplemental brief that includes over 300 pages of exhibits in an attempt to reduce paying an anti-SLAPP judgment against Veronica Brill at https://t.co/wFLKERQXzD
— Kevin Mathers (@Kevmath) June 11, 2021
Brill’s Response
After Postle accused Brill of everything from profiting from a GoFundMe to making sexual advances toward Postle himself, Brill responded.
Her declaration to the court needed only be a list of corrections. Brill spelled out the already-publicly-noted details of the GoFundMe campaign, specifically that all money reimbursed by the court from that campaign will go to helping a quadriplegic poker player obtain a handicap-accessible van.
Brill clarified that she never filed any sexual assault charges or complaints “with any place of employment in my life.” While Postle’s claim had no place in this court proceeding in the first place, she did address it. She also had to clarify, again to rebut an ugly and irrelevant claim, that she never made romantic overtures to Postle.
In his defense, no one could resist that moon face and oversized shirt pic.twitter.com/RTEH5RDHrL
— Veronica Brill (@Angry_Polak) June 7, 2021
The final brief in total calls Postle’s “procedurally improper and untimely rogue document” was only a “vehicle for irrelevant mud-slinging directed at both Brill and her counsel.”
Further, Randazza rebutted claims by Postle – if he did, indeed, write them himself – about his conduct in other cases and his actions in representing Brill in this one. He then noted that Brill will amend her list of fees to add those incurred as a part of the case due to her need to respond to Postle’s brief.
The hearing is set for Wednesday, June 16. Judge Mesiwala will only decide on the reimbursement of fees to Brill, which is the only matter at hand.
