[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, what source do you have for the certainty of your opinions ... "evidence is so compelling" ... "judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's."

[/ QUOTE ]
A good source would be Gold's declaration. Gold admits that Leyser came up with a few celebrities, and Gold also admits that Gold promised Leyser a share of his winnings.

The poster you're responding to is inferring from those facts that there was a quid pro quo -- that neither one was just doing the other a favor as a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point still stands ... no one other than the parties involved can make those kinds of conclusions right now. What has be revealed in the pleadings and public disclosure thus far is the tip of the fact/evidence iceberg.

Then again, as I also said, this is NVG ... so have at it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember that Leyser has the burden of proof -- he has to prove their was consideration. How can he do that without something from Bodog?

[/ QUOTE ]
By testifying directly on that issue. It's not hard to imagine that Leyser's testimony will be more believable than Gold's.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have seen, the only possible consideration was procuring celebrity players. No way that issue is resolved by either Gold's or Leyser's testimony, IMHO.

Besides, if either of these guys is willing to take a chance for 6 million on he-says, he-says scenario, they are both the idiots they so far appear to be.

NCAces