Today in California, the Hon. William B. Shubb is hearing oral arguments regarding the Motions to Dismiss by Mike Postle, Stones & Justin Kuraitis.

It's just about to start. I will be listening in and tweeting any worthwhile developments in a thread to this tweet.

Currently on the call, but there's a different case being heard first. VERONICA BRILL, et al. (Maurice VerStandig) v. MICHAEL L. POSTLE , et al. (Mark Mao) (Richard Pachter) (Michael Postle, Pro Se) coming up next according to the hearing schedule.

The first case just concluded. Next up is Postle case. Worth pointing out that defendants are not required to give oral argument (this is their opportunity to) but can instead rest on the motion itself. We'll see who chooses to speak soon.

Plaintiff's lawyer @mac_verstandig on the call. Mike Postle, Justin Kuraitis & Stones lawyer are all on the line.

Judge considered postponing hearing until the sactions motion was decided, but decided not to and to go ahead w/ this hearing. Judge asks Postle if he is familair w/ what's in his brief. Postle says he is and "Will do the best he can." Judge says he will treat him like a lawyer.

At start, the judge wanted to make clear that Postle understands the legal argument he's making in his motion to dismiss. He said that he did and would do his best.

Stones lawyer first up. Summarizes briefing into three major points: 1) Choices 2) Justice system not about making policy decisions on odds 3) What precedent & policy plaintiff's motion could set.

Stones lawyer arguing the 89 Plaintiffs did not file as a class-action lawsuit, so cannot argue as such. Instead, say each plaintiff must argue their own case.

Stones lawyer: "I do not pretend to be a gambling expert."

Mac VerStandig is.

Judge & Stones talking "Kelly" precedent which addresses the judicial resolution of gambling losses. Stones suggests it is against.

Judge pushing back on it saying it was rooted in the former public policy against gambling as a whole (not the case in California anymore). "Why are they saying Kelly is still good law when gambling is now not against public policy."

Judge says if a casino itself (i.e. giving out marked cards or loaded dice) was "overtly cheating there" patrons there would be a "regulatory remedy."

Personally, my current feeling is judge doesn't have much empathy for casinos.

Stones arguing that the Plaintiff's alleged accomplice to Postle, who has not been named, is not an agent of Stones, so they should not be involved.

Stone wrapped for now. The judge offered Postle opportunity to speak.

Postle: "I'm good for now, your honor. Thank you."

It seems he is going to defer to the motion in itself, and to be honest, given the level of legal professionalism in this court is probably the wise move.

Plaintiff's lawyer Mac VerStandig's turn to argue. Judge asks what they think Postle did and what Stones should have done about it.

VerStandig explaining RFID and how they think cheating occurred.

Judge quips its elaborate: "That's worse than the Houston Astro's scheme."

Judge says Mac VerStandig audio breaking up. Chastizes him a bit. In first case, judge stressed need for lawyers to have reliable internet, equipment, etc.

Judge to VerStandig: "You need to have some theory as to what the technology is that would allow Mike Postle and his confederate to do this."

VerStandig basically arguing phone/production booth "screen sharing."

Judge: "I guess if that's your theory, that's your theory."

VerStandig argues that a Stones agent was involved and that more details would be revealed in discovery.

Judge: "That enlightens me somewhat on your theory."

Now turning to the topic speculation of losses.

Judge, who seemed skeptical, wanted to know if the Plaintiffs would be able to go back and determine things (i.e. rake, players, etc.).

VerStandig brings up the live streams.

VerStandig: "Yes, we can absolutely go back and replay all hands."

Judge seemed to perk up.