DN loses respect for Raymer

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


With this lawsuit, these 7 plaintiffs may end up helping to destroy the American online poker world that has made them all rich and famous.


[/ QUOTE ]

The WPT has their own poker site. Do you really think they are trying to destroy online poker? Remember, they could settle this lawsuit in a microsecond by making minor changes to their release.

[Lawman007]

Come on, Greg, just because someone disagrees with your lawsuit doesn't make them a shill for the WPT. There are plenty of people, myself included, who think that your lawsuit is going to hurt, rather than help, the poker community in general and the online poker community in particular.

[CaryDarling]

[ QUOTE ]

I think your understanding of the law is very poor. There is no way that WPT can market a videogame of 'HU against Raymer' without Raymer's explicit permission (and profit sharing). The agreement they signed merely allowed WPT to use snippets of these guys during the tournament to advertise their program, much as they do now.

I don't know too much about this lawsuit, but the release they're asked to sign is actually pretty standard in many areas. And in no way does such a release give carte-blank permission for the other party to exploit your image in some unrelated product.

I'm no lawyer but I think I know American law well enough to know the example you posed as being just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You get owned in so many ways in previous posts, making the point I was going to make...so I'll only sit here and lolomgroflz.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawyer but I think I know American law well enough to know the example you posed as being just silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am a lawyer, and I therefore know enough to know that the example he posted, while perhaps correct, or perhaps incorrect (it is debateable), is not "silly."

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Well, I did say I didn't think he was actually a shill. But he sure talks just the same as a shill would talk. Maybe with less competence, but otherwise the same.

I'm just amazed that somebody can be so gung-ho against the position we are taking, without being aligned with the WPT.

Even if you think that the WPT is going to play the "online gambling card" (analogous to playing the "race card" in theoretically racial situations that don't actually have anything to do with racism), does that mean that you should just sit back and continue to let them screw you over? As far as I'm concerned, that's like giving your lunch money to the bully all year long so he doesn't beat you up. It's just the wrong thing to do. I'd rather stand up to the bully, even if he hurts me at first, and get some justice.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't. The defendent pled something about it in its answer. That doesn't mean anything. You can plead anything you want in an answer. There's no penalty for saying stuff that's completely irrelevant or bogus, and most of the content of an answer typically bears little resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch ... I understand the point you are making ... parties do throw into their answers what would be deemed "argument" and not fact -- the WPTs response is a textbook example -- but the answer always "bears resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit." Much of it may be greek to the layperson, but it is the seminal document in the defense's response and one that they are bound by. If they make a mistake they can under certain circumstances move the court to amend it, but make no mistake that it is a very important document and has everything to do with the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer just denies everything in the complaint and then alledges every possible defense to the complaint's causes of action, even though most of the alledged defenses will be completely bogus. (Note: I'm talking about answers in general. I haven't read the WPT's answer in particular.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure we disagree here ... perhaps more in the way you said it. We both agree that an answer contains all sorts of boilerplate objections and pleadings, many of which ultimately won't have anything to do with the action. Sort of the kitchen sink approach. Where I took exception was when you said "the content of an answer typically bears little resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit." It may be that all sorts of other stuff gets thrown in, but much of the content is directly related to the lawsuit, and failure to properly plead can cause all sorts of problems for the Defendant. As I mentioned in my OP, I understand and agree with the point you were making ... I just wanted to clarify that the answer is a serious document that does have value.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that WPTE paid at least $100,000 for the preparation of that answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The WPT will spend $100,000 in legal fees soon enough, but you're probably off by about $95,000 if we're just talking about drafting and filing the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think? I sat back after reading your post and conclude we are probably both wrong. $100,000 is probably high, but $5,000 is way low. In fact, what I am sure of is that $5K was spent in the first meeting with the client and the reading of the Complaint. How much more after that is a perfect NVG subject.

The defendants' attorneys -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- are an AmLaw 100 law firm ... they are the 14th largest law firm in the US by some measures. The average annual compensation to partners exceeds 1 million per year. I figure that the lowest hourly rate that an associate in that firm charges is $200 per hour. The senior partners rates are probably in the $400 - $500 per hour rate. There is also another law firm involved. A total of 4 lawyers signed the Answer. This being NVG, I am guessing you have the following:

Intial meeting with WPTE - 8 hours
Subsequent meetings and phone calls - 20 hours
Reading and analysing the Complaint - 20 hours
Internal meetings to discuss the Complaint with multiple attorneys involved - 40 man hours
Legal research on the issues, including drafting of memoranda - 40 man hours
Drafing, revising and finalizing the Answer - 40 hours
Miscellaneous meetings, phone calls, etc. - 10 hours

Guestimate on total hours: 200 hours @ an effective hourly rate of $250 per hour (which would only be this low if the associates did a lot of the work, which is likely)

Total cost to prepare the Answer: $50K.

Then again, I could be wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I did say I didn't think he was actually a shill. But he sure talks just the same as a shill would talk. Maybe with less competence, but otherwise the same.

I'm just amazed that somebody can be so gung-ho against the position we are taking, without being aligned with the WPT.

Even if you think that the WPT is going to play the "online gambling card" (analogous to playing the "race card" in theoretically racial situations that don't actually have anything to do with racism), does that mean that you should just sit back and continue to let them screw you over? As far as I'm concerned, that's like giving your lunch money to the bully all year long so he doesn't beat you up. It's just the wrong thing to do. I'd rather stand up to the bully, even if he hurts me at first, and get some justice.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that throwing in the Online Gambling language was their way of saying they are serious, and I can see how one might classify that as "dirty pool" (assuming that their point has no basis in law or fact, which I don't know).

However, I think a reasonable view of the entire litigation is that your side has done the same thing. It seems to me that your main complaint is the release ... I have a feeling from your posts that if they changed the release tomorrow the anti-trust part of the suit goes away. So, to some degree, you guys throwing in the anti-trust allegations -- which are far more serious than the release issues -- could be seen as your "dirty pool" way of, to use your words, "blackmail" them into giving in on the release issue.

I happen to hope that you prevail on your release issue. I can't win my neighborhood tournament more than once every year or so (you are welcome to come play with us in Cary), but I'd like to think over the years I'll get better and maybe one day win a WPT event (as unlikely as that might be). When that happens I would be grateful for a fairer release. But in the meantime, you have to understand that for even those of us who respect your skills and all you've done here, we may not see that your legal machinations are any more reasonable than those of the WPTE. And I don't have to be a WPTE shill to believe that.

Good luck in your lawsuit.

NCAces

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't. The defendent pled something about it in its answer. That doesn't mean anything. You can plead anything you want in an answer. There's no penalty for saying stuff that's completely irrelevant or bogus, and most of the content of an answer typically bears little resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch ... I understand the point you are making ... parties do throw into their answers what would be deemed "argument" and not fact -- the WPTs response is a textbook example -- but the answer always "bears resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit." Much of it may be greek to the layperson, but it is the seminal document in the defense's response and one that they are bound by. If they make a mistake they can under certain circumstances move the court to amend it, but make no mistake that it is a very important document and has everything to do with the reality of the lawsuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer just denies everything in the complaint and then alledges every possible defense to the complaint's causes of action, even though most of the alledged defenses will be completely bogus. (Note: I'm talking about answers in general. I haven't read the WPT's answer in particular.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure we disagree here ... perhaps more in the way you said it. We both agree that an answer contains all sorts of boilerplate objections and pleadings, many of which ultimately won't have anything to do with the action. Sort of the kitchen sink approach. Where I took exception was when you said "the content of an answer typically bears little resemblance to the reality of the lawsuit." It may be that all sorts of other stuff gets thrown in, but much of the content is directly related to the lawsuit, and failure to properly plead can cause all sorts of problems for the Defendant. As I mentioned in my OP, I understand and agree with the point you were making ... I just wanted to clarify that the answer is a serious document that does have value.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that WPTE paid at least $100,000 for the preparation of that answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
The WPT will spend $100,000 in legal fees soon enough, but you're probably off by about $95,000 if we're just talking about drafting and filing the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think? I sat back after reading your post and conclude we are probably both wrong. $100,000 is probably high, but $5,000 is way low. In fact, what I am sure of is that $5K was spent in the first meeting with the client and the reading of the Complaint. How much more after that is a perfect NVG subject.

The defendants' attorneys -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher -- are an AmLaw 100 law firm ... they are the 14th largest law firm in the US by some measures. The average annual compensation to partners exceeds 1 million per year. I figure that the lowest hourly rate that an associate in that firm charges is $200 per hour. The senior partners rates are probably in the $400 - $500 per hour rate. There is also another law firm involved. A total of 4 lawyers signed the Answer. This being NVG, I am guessing you have the following:

Intial meeting with WPTE - 8 hours
Subsequent meetings and phone calls - 20 hours
Reading and analysing the Complaint - 20 hours
Internal meetings to discuss the Complaint with multiple attorneys involved - 40 man hours
Legal research on the issues, including drafting of memoranda - 40 man hours
Drafing, revising and finalizing the Answer - 40 hours
Miscellaneous meetings, phone calls, etc. - 10 hours

Guestimate on total hours: 200 hours @ an effective hourly rate of $250 per hour (which would only be this low if the associates did a lot of the work, which is likely)

Total cost to prepare the Answer: $50K.

Then again, I could be wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you could be wrong, since you are engaging in nothing but sheer speculation like you usually do, which you should know is inadmissible, counselor. LOL

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you could be wrong, since you are engaging in nothing but sheer speculation like you usually do, which you should know is inadmissible, counselor. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, troll, you wanta provide some insight I missed?

NCAces

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you could be wrong, since you are engaging in nothing but sheer speculation like you usually do, which you should know is inadmissible, counselor. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, troll, you wanta provide some insight I missed?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I think I'll pass on pulling something out of my rear-end. You seem to have handled that pretty well yourself.