More Leyser-Gold drama
 

There have been some new court papers filed. Leyser seems to be taking apart Gold's claims pretty well. He says "The only truthful assertion in Defendant's Motion is that 'Gold no longer intends to share his winnings'."

It turns out that there is another backer who is owed 10% who is only named as "Eric." Although Eric should get $1.2 million (or perhaps $600,000 of the half that Gold holds), he has only received $100,000 or $200,000 according to Gold.

Gold also admits that Leyser agreed to share tips for both the dealers and a Bodog rep 50/50 (although reports say that Gold never did tip the dealers). He also says that Leyser offered to split the 10% for Eric 50/50.

I don't want to spam, but I've posted more details on my blog along with the actual court filing in PDF form. If this link isn't cool, feel free to chop it.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

gold never tipped the dealers?

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

The rumor I've heard is that Alan was the only one at the final table who tipped. I don't really know.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Well they all tipped the dealers extremely generously in theory, given the large chunk of the prize pool that was withheld for them.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

I refuse to get sucked into another tipping debate, but I agree with you in general that everyone paid plenty of juice already.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Harrahs took a huge chunk of the prizepool......they should take care of the dealers

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Did Technologic tip?

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's withheld a certain amount "for the staff", which basicaly means they can do whatever they want with it. Usually when money is withheld it is specificaly earmarked for the dealers or floor staff, etc. The fact that Harrah's made a point to change this is pretty revealing.

I didn't deal the WSOP and don't know how much they made, but I would bet they didn't get much of the withheld money.


[ QUOTE ]
if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will never happen.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will never happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK it sorta happened in 06' hence the reason he said "...but when even more dealers..."

someone correct me if I am wrong.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

The hearing was yesterday and the judge ruled that the money will stay locked up. Both sides agreed to move the money to an interest-bearing account. The judge said that Gold's actions don't give Leyser much assurance that the money would be there if he lost and also that he believed that Leyser was likely to win the case.

This is obviously a very good result for Leyser.

It is starting to hit the wire services now. Seattle PI

I'm updating my blog post linked above to include the transcript of Gold's testimony.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dealers on this site need to quit trying to guilt us into tipping. It is a very easy job that requires no education and minimal training and deserves no more than $12/hour yet they want $30+/hour.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
The judge said that Gold's actions don't give Leyser much assurance that the money would be there if he lost and also that he believed that Leyser was likely to win the case.

This is obviously a very good result for Leyser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you feel it! Yea, baby! Who predicted this! Me, me, me! It's all about me being right for once in my sorry life!

<dances around living room like retard>

Just one time, baby!

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

I really wish I had never mentioned the tip.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]

<dances around living room like retard>

Just one time, baby!

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt about DessertCat, you trapped us....Go give John Chan a big huggle

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]

No doubt about DessertCat, you trapped us....Go give John Chan a big huggle

[/ QUOTE ]

I think TeddyFBI and the others who were WRONG should be forced to let me give them a "Captain Tom Franklin".

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The judge said that Gold's actions don't give Leyser much assurance that the money would be there if he lost and also that he believed that Leyser was likely to win the case.

This is obviously a very good result for Leyser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you feel it! Yea, baby! Who predicted this! Me, me, me! It's all about me being right for once in my sorry life!

<dances around living room like retard>

Just one time, baby!

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you make a bet on Leyser futures?

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No doubt about DessertCat, you trapped us....Go give John Chan a big huggle

[/ QUOTE ]

I think TeddyFBI and the others who were WRONG should be forced to let me give them a "Captain Tom Franklin".

[/ QUOTE ]

The only position I've taken in this soap opera is that both sides are missing chromosomes. And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is.
Feel free to resume dancing like a retard.

Good updates, Soup, keep em coming.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

You're funny DCat.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice revisionism. You said there was not enough evidence of consideration and that Leyser had no case. A real judge with a real degree thinks otherwise. You're lucky he didn't rule for my CTF:)

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]

And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding


[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but I think there is a very good chance that there was consideration here. It is very possible that either: A) Gold made the promise to split the winnings when he failed to find celebrities for Bodog and asked Leyser for help, or B) both Leyser and Gold agreed that they would split the winnings and both try to find celebrities for Bodog. In either of those scenarios there would be consideration.

The evidence for consideration is sketchy and basically just Gold's word versus Leyser's word, but it only has to be greater than 50/50. I think you could make a very good argument that Gold would not have left that message to Leyser if he had merely made an offhand promise to Leyser after the fact.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's withheld a certain amount "for the staff", which basicaly means they can do whatever they want with it. Usually when money is withheld it is specificaly earmarked for the dealers or floor staff, etc. The fact that Harrah's made a point to change this is pretty revealing.

I didn't deal the WSOP and don't know how much they made, but I would bet they didn't get much of the withheld money.


[ QUOTE ]
if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what the dealers made. It is in line with what a break in dealer would make other places. If everyone is happy having the WSOP dealt only by breakin dealers that is fine.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

"And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is."

Goodsamaritan understates the winning argument:

Whether consideration existed is a matter of fact, the facts pleaded and admitted to by Gold on Rounders sure seem to support the affirmative burden borne by the Plaintiff to show consideration

AND I doubt Gold will have much evidence of a past practice of giving away ANYTHING .... I would request aadmissions and seek discovery of Gold's past tax returns and his bank records since the WSOP.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

I think it is particularly damning that he hasn't paid the other guy either. His argument that he isn't paying Leyser because Leyser made him mad doesn't work as well when he didn't pay the other guy in full.

Gold's biggest problem in my opinion is that his story was obviously BS. He just wanted to give him the money because he felt sorry for him. Absurd. In any context, once the judge or jury decide that you are full of crap and your word is not to be believed, you are in trouble.

The concise summary from the pleadings is persuasive, I think:

[ QUOTE ]
In order to believe the Defendant’s version of events, which is unsupported and is merely a self-serving statement of the Defendant, the Court would have to believe that on August 11, 2006, after being guarenteed at least $1,200,000 in the World Series of Poker Main Event, the Defendant contacted Crispin Leyser, who he had known for one month and who had been repeatedly harassing him during the poker tournament, to confirm his “promise” to Crispin that he would receive half of Defendant’s winnings, and that the Defendant did all of this because he felt sorry for Crispin.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, Gold should try very hard to get Leyser to settle. He can then try to put some face-saving spin on the thing. If he doesn't, he's likely to still pay the $6 million and burn up a bunch in legal fees.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The judge said that Gold's actions don't give Leyser much assurance that the money would be there if he lost and also that he believed that Leyser was likely to win the case.

This is obviously a very good result for Leyser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you feel it! Yea, baby! Who predicted this! Me, me, me! It's all about me being right for once in my sorry life!

<dances around living room like retard>

Just one time, baby!

[/ QUOTE ]

If only you could short Jamie Gold stock.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No doubt about DessertCat, you trapped us....Go give John Chan a big huggle

[/ QUOTE ]

I think TeddyFBI and the others who were WRONG should be forced to let me give them a "Captain Tom Franklin".

[/ QUOTE ]

The only position I've taken in this soap opera is that both sides are missing chromosomes. And that mere promises, lacking consideration, are not binding -- see my blog (or go to law school) for an explanation of why that is.
Feel free to resume dancing like a retard.

Good updates, Soup, keep em coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Teddy is right. This is basic 1L Contracts. Without consideration, no contract is binding unless there was substantial reliance. Leyser's lawyers messed up pretty bad on this on. They should have made him buy a house or something to show reliance. I can't really see Gold losing unless there is vital info missing.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Can someone explain consideration? Reliance?

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain consideration? Reliance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Consideration is the most important concept. Basically, in order to make a valid contract both sides must give something up of value. If one person is giving something up and the other person is giving nothing, then you are talking about a gift, not a contract.

Leyser says that he found celebrities for Gold and that was his consideration. Gold's consideration was half of his winnings. If Gold agreed to give Leyser half in exchange for Leyser securing celebrities, then they have a contract and Gold will wind up losing $6 million. If he didn't, then he won't.

The most recent court filings suggest that Gold is going to have a hard time proving his story. He claims that he didn't need to get the celebs to get backed by Bodog and that he only offered to give Leyser the money because he felt sorry for him.

He has several material problems with his story. First, the contract from Bodog was sent to him with the contract for the celeb that Leyser arranged. It was all in the same email. That suggests that there was some linkage. Secondly, his own words in the Rounders podcast strongly suggest that Leyser got the celebs to help him get a seat. Thirdly, the phone message that he left suggests that they did have some kind of deal. Finally, Gold's story doesn't much pass the sniff test. He claims that he made a phone call reinforcing his promise to pay what was already certain to be at least half a million to someone who was repeatedly harassing him that he had just met a month before because he is a nice guy. That is a hard sell, I think.

Reliance is a legal concept that says that if you "changed your position" as a result of a promise that someone made you have a claim to enforce the contract.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, Gold should try very hard to get Leyser to settle. He can then try to put some face-saving spin on the thing. If he doesn't, he's likely to still pay the $6 million and burn up a bunch in legal fees.

[/ QUOTE ]

My feeling all along would be that this would eventually settle for something in the $2-3M range and I still believe that. From what I have been reading (and thanks to the OP for providing this info) Leyser is in a strong position but there is still considerable uncertainty in whether he will succeed and also I would think there is nothing here so far that warrants him receiving 50% of the entire prize. If Gold has obligations to others (Chan, BoDog, etc...) they will be factored in to the judges decision.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

NoSoup4U,

Thanks for the timely posts and clear explanations.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't harrah's only give a fraction of the fraction of the prizepool that was withheld for the dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's withheld a certain amount "for the staff", which basicaly means they can do whatever they want with it. Usually when money is withheld it is specificaly earmarked for the dealers or floor staff, etc. The fact that Harrah's made a point to change this is pretty revealing.

I didn't deal the WSOP and don't know how much they made, but I would bet they didn't get much of the withheld money.


[ QUOTE ]
if this is true, then it is harrah's fault and really doesn't matter

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sorta. It is Harrah's fault, but when even more dealers walk out and every competant dealer refuses to work for Harrahs it will be everyone's problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what the dealers made. It is in line with what a break in dealer would make other places. If everyone is happy having the WSOP dealt only by breakin dealers that is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this isnt the time or place, but:

If the dealers are aweful, players will stop entering WSOP events, which will lose Harrahs money, which will make them realise they NEED good dealers to keep people happy, which will make them pay dealers better, which will get better dealers returning, which will get more players playing.

It is NOT the job of players to make up the difference - if Harrahs is charging a high juice and not passing this on to dealers then the problem is between Harrahs and the dealers.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the dealers are aweful, players will stop entering WSOP events, which will lose Harrahs money, which will make them realise they NEED good dealers to keep people happy, which will make them pay dealers better, which will get better dealers returning, which will get more players playing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Such a free market explanation doesn't really fit here, because the players aren't as informed/rational as you assume. How many entrants into the WSOP have never played live? How many have played live, but not enough to know - or care - about the difference between a "good" dealer and a serviceable one? There's also factors such as the prestige of the WSOP which would tend to offset loss of players due to bad service.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the dealers are aweful, players will stop entering WSOP events, which will lose Harrahs money, which will make them realise they NEED good dealers to keep people happy,

[/ QUOTE ]

One would expect this to be true, but I am not sure that it is. I know of some very large poker rooms in the east that are known for having terrible dealers taht still get plenty of play.

[ QUOTE ]
which will make them realise they NEED good dealers to keep people happy, which will make them pay dealers better, which will get better dealers returning, which will get more players playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that the people hiring dealers know who the good dealers are and where to find them.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]

My feeling all along would be that this would eventually settle for something in the $2-3M range and I still believe that. From what I have been reading (and thanks to the OP for providing this info) Leyser is in a strong position but there is still considerable uncertainty in whether he will succeed and also I would think there is nothing here so far that warrants him receiving 50% of the entire prize. If Gold has obligations to others (Chan, BoDog, etc...) they will be factored in to the judges decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Leyser settle now? The judge who will make the final ruling at trial, just said that Leyser is very likely to prevail at that trial. That's huge. And Gold & Chan have said there is no obligations to Chan. And BoDog is now paying Jaime, not the other way around.

This is slam dunk for Leyser. Junior law students can argue over whether there is "consideration", but the judge in the trial has already ruled there is. It's like arguing with Theo Epstein over his posting fee for D-Mat. You may be right that Theo paid too much, but the deal is done and the issue is over.

If Leyser wanted to settle, he could offer Jaime $400k-500k to go away. That unlocks the money now, not six months from now, which has some value to Leyser. And it protects him from the small risk that Jaime's lawyer can come up with a new defense, get a new judge or find some other strategy to get the money.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

Does anyone have a PDF of exactly what the judge said?

I suspect that people may be overblowing what the judge said about Leyser being likely to win.

On of the legal elements necessary for upholding an injunction is a "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits." The judge was probably just saying that Leyser has presented enough evidence to meet that element, which is differnt than the judge saying that s/he thinks Leyser is going to win.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

http://bluffmagazine.com/blog/blogde...d=4&aid=80


blog Mark Sief wrote about this case.

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

To quote Seif

[ QUOTE ]

In refusing to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Judge Hunt stated and it became obvious that he spent a great deal of time carefully reading Gold's affidavit, deposition testimony, pleadings, and transcripts of Gold's own radio interview and voice mail message.He found Gold's "version" of the facts contradictory and inconsistent. In contrast, the Judge stated that Plaintiff Crispin Leyser's position was consistent from the very beginning.

Judge Hunt also found and stated on the record that Crispin will likely prevail on the merits at trial. That's strong - very strong when you consider that there has been no demand for a jury trial and that THIS Judge will decide the case at trial. It's certainly not conclusive - but it gives you an idea what the Judge is thinking and which way he is leaning (despite the headline which appeared in some articles today stating the opposite - it was just a typo).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: More Leyser-Gold drama
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My feeling all along would be that this would eventually settle for something in the $2-3M range and I still believe that. From what I have been reading (and thanks to the OP for providing this info) Leyser is in a strong position but there is still considerable uncertainty in whether he will succeed and also I would think there is nothing here so far that warrants him receiving 50% of the entire prize. If Gold has obligations to others (Chan, BoDog, etc...) they will be factored in to the judges decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Leyser settle now? The judge who will make the final ruling at trial, just said that Leyser is very likely to prevail at that trial. That's huge. And Gold & Chan have said there is no obligations to Chan. And BoDog is now paying Jaime, not the other way around.

This is slam dunk for Leyser. Junior law students can argue over whether there is "consideration", but the judge in the trial has already ruled there is. It's like arguing with Theo Epstein over his posting fee for D-Mat. You may be right that Theo paid too much, but the deal is done and the issue is over.

If Leyser wanted to settle, he could offer Jaime $400k-500k to go away. That unlocks the money now, not six months from now, which has some value to Leyser. And it protects him from the small risk that Jaime's lawyer can come up with a new defense, get a new judge or find some other strategy to get the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think it matters what a low level judge thinks? Like I said before, if all the facts are out, Gold should win. Even if the current judge rules against him, the appeals process will favor Gold. There is no consideration and no reliance. My K prof would turn over in his grave. Gold made a gift and he can retract it at any time.