Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

I'm not convinced that Leyser has that strong a case. Given that I don't know much about this matter (only what's posted on this thread), it appears that there is no reciprical consideration on Leyser's part to Gold's 'agreement' to give him half. I seriously doubt that a verbal agreement from one party to another, with no consideration (meaning nothing of value given in return) is really enforceable.

I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps some lawyer can weight in on this issue. But if I said I would give you $xxx for nothing, and then renege, I don't think you have a cause for legal action.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not interesting, and it's not complex. If Gold says he owes Leyser a share, then it's Leyser's tax liability on that share. The IRS has a standard form for Gold to fill out documenting this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are addressing a different question. It is Gold's position that he doesn't owe Leyser anything and that if he does give Leyser something then it is a gift. This would be subject to gift taxes if he was correct. Additionally, under that theory, Gold would owe taxes on the full $12 million.

Had Gold agreed to give $6 million to Leyser and filled out a 5754, then one would expect Leyser to owe the taxes. Gold includes in his filings a declaration from a tax lawyer with a LLM in tax and 25 years of tax practice that it is his professional opinion that Gold could still be subject to tax on the full amount "based upon various tax theories." He also stated that if Leyser didn't pay his tax Gold had "greater tax liability exposure." He also stated that the fact that Leyser was not a US citizen might raise withholding issues for Gold.

The lawyer also claims that he offered to pay Leyser his share as long as he agreed to hold an offset for the tax in escrow and that Leyser's lawyer (Seif) refused. "He was very belligerent in his response."

I'm not an expert on the tax issues. I know that it is conventional wisdom here that if you file a 5754, that is the end of your exposure and that each person is now liable for their own taxes. This may in fact be the case. But Gold's response has a tax lawyer (Sam Israel) who declares in a court filing that it is his professional opinion that considerable tax risks remained for Gold even if he did file a 5754.

Perhaps you are a tax expert with better information that Israel. I am not.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are wrong. Leyser has documentation of their oral agreement via the Jamie Gold voicemail (which as the other poster said, contradicts the most important parts of Gold's claims). As far as the court is concerned Leyser has presented compelling evidence that it's his money and Jamie needs to show some compelling evidence to prove otherwise, and so far he hasn't been able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to secure an injunction of this type you must prove two things. One is that you are likely to prevail on the merits. Most of your argument addresses this issue. I tend to agree with you that Leyser has a good case on this front. However, there is a critical second thing that you must prove: you must prove that if Gold is allowed to have access to the money that Leyser would suffer irreparable harm. This is the point that is on shaky legal ground, in my opinion. In general, that Leyser is afraid that Gold would spend the money is not sufficient to freeze his accounts. Otherwise, every plaintiff could sue someone and freeze up their assets while the case was litigated. The courts generally hold that there adequate ways to ensure that the plaintiff gets the money after the case is done so that the money does not have to be frozen until that time.

[ QUOTE ]
What does "I promise you that you will get your half and you can use this voicemail as documentation to prove it" actually mean? I think it means that Jamie Gold is one of the biggest scumbags to ever win a major tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we pretty much completely agree.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced that Leyser has that strong a case. Given that I don't know much about this matter (only what's posted on this thread), it appears that there is no reciprical consideration on Leyser's part to Gold's 'agreement' to give him half. I seriously doubt that a verbal agreement from one party to another, with no consideration (meaning nothing of value given in return) is really enforceable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely correct. If Leyser can not prove that providing the celebrities was consideration to Gold, then this is a promise of a gift, which is not enforceable. Leyser states that Gold was required to provide the celebrities by Bodog and that obtaining the celebrities was his consideration. Gold states that his deal with Bodog required no such thing. Gold produced a contract which supports his position. Unless Bodog testifies that they really did require that, Leyser has a serious problem.

If you are a conspiracy buff, Bodog may have a financial interest in helping Gold, who is likely to be their biggest spokesman for the next year or so. They may be inclined to "forget" that they asked Gold to do any such thing.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a prediction on what will happen, Leyser will realize the above points, but the threat of losing at trial (and the cost of trial) will lead to a settlement in the 1-2 million range.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
6) Gold would have given him a cut if Leyser didn't sue him, but now he is mad and isn't giving him jack.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one always holds up. I see it everyday on Judge Mathis.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

i trapped hiM!!!

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you are a conspiracy buff, Bodog may have a financial interest in helping Gold, who is likely to be their biggest spokesman for the next year or so. They may be inclined to "forget" that they asked Gold to do any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be a conspiracy buff to believe both that Gold was supposed to bring celebs to the tourn as part of his deal and that the agreement was never written down in any sort of contract, I guess making its existence harder to prove. But really, why else would bodog give him a seat?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Leyser will get much. If his strongest piece of evidence is a voicemail left by a manic poker player making an outragous clame, I can't see him getting far. Gold's lawyers will just say something like "look, he called and left that message just to get the guy off his back so he could focus on the tournyment. Of course he didn't intend to give him half for no reason."

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the jury of 2+2 how well is that argument doing? Survive summary judgment and I think Gold is toast. And Gold should not be able to win a summary judgment because it is a he said, she said type case.

This is all about Gold seeking leverage to cut a better deal. The taxes are a total smokescreen.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you are a conspiracy buff, Bodog may have a financial interest in helping Gold, who is likely to be their biggest spokesman for the next year or so. They may be inclined to "forget" that they asked Gold to do any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to be a conspiracy buff to believe both that Gold was supposed to bring celebs to the tourn as part of his deal and that the agreement was never written down in any sort of contract, I guess making its existence harder to prove. But really, why else would bodog give him a seat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall reading he is producing a TV show for Bodog. If this is true, the production deal might have been struck prior to the WSOP, or possibly the seat was as "gift" to Gold.

The more I see about this case the more it looks like Gold is the lesser of two scumbags.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]