Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

There are a lot of new court documents today that aren't posted on the website linked earlier. I'll put them up on my site if the guy doesn't post them soon.

The Cliff Notes are:

1) Gold says that his contract with Bodog didn't require him to get any celebrities
2) Gold says that Leyser said he could get Matthew Perry and Matthew McConaughey and Gold told him if he could get them, Bodog "might" give Leyser a seat
3) When Leyser only came up with the two lame celebs, Gold told Leyser that he couldn't get a seat for them.
4) When Gold told Leyser that he couldn't get a seat, Leyser was sad and Gold offered to give him a share of his winnings because he felt sorry for him (!?!?!?)
5) Leyser kept harassing Gold during the WSOP
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.

There is some other amusing stuff in there. Mark Seif was Leyser's first lawyer. Gold claims that Leyser was going to run off and duck his taxes and that Gold might have got stuck with them if he did. Gold details the very lame TV shows that Leyser promoted. There is some stuff about Leyser being broke and having trouble making his house payments and one of Gold's lawyers saying that Seif was a butthead. That's pretty amusing.

I'll link up the docs in a while if the other guy doesn't do it soon. I'd just as soon let him provide the bandwidth.

The point #4 is the part that defies belief for me. Gold had no requirement to get celebs from Bodog, but he offered half of his winnings to Leyser because he felt sorry for him?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

Some amusing quotes from Gold's Declaration:

"I expressed a desire to take care of Leyser by sharing a portion of my winnings. I did not mean he would receive 50% of the winnings or that he was sharing my seat"

"I simply intended to make a gift to Leyser if I were to win any money because I felt bad for Leyser"

"During the tournament, Leyser asked me to document an agreement to pay half my winnings. I refused because no such agreement existed."

"Finally, after continued phone calls, I left Leyser a message that he would get "half after taxes"

"This was not a confirmation of any agreement, but a confirmation of my intention to take care of him."

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

anyone with any insight as to how long this case might take to resolve?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

Discovery ends in March and there will motions for the judge to settle it without trial in April. It could end there (but that is not the most likely scenario). If it goes to trial, it will depend on the docket in Nevada, which I'm not familiar with, but I'd guess a trial in the August/September, 2007 time frame would be a reasonable estimate.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

Gold = litigious douche bag. I hope he loses badly.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Discovery ends in March and there will motions for the judge to settle it without trial in April. It could end there (but that is not the most likely scenario). If it goes to trial, it will depend on the docket in Nevada, which I'm not familiar with, but I'd guess a trial in the August/September, 2007 time frame would be a reasonable estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that seems like a long time to settle a gambling debt...I assume Gold doesn't have to pay taxes on the part that was frozen? Any chance they strike a deal between now and the prospective trial date?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

gold is going to lose badly. the voice mail message alone contradicts most of his claims.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, that seems like a long time to settle a gambling debt...I assume Gold doesn't have to pay taxes on the part that was frozen? Any chance they strike a deal between now and the prospective trial date?

[/ QUOTE ]

The wheels of justice turn slowly. Gold's position is that he has no deal with Leyser -- it was just a promise of a gift.

There is always a chance that they will settle. The system is absolutely designed to encourage that. It might not settle if one side is convinced that they will certainly prevail. The most frequent time for a case like this to settle is between discovery and trial, so March-April time frame for that.

The question of tax liability is an interesting and complex one. I really don't know what the answer is. It seems to me that if Gold's position is that it is his money, he owes taxes on it. The fact that it is tied up in litigation is not going to change that.

I also think there is a pretty good chance that the court releases the $6 million that Harrah's is currently holding to Gold. In essence, Leyser's argument is that if the court lets Gold get to the money, he might spend it all. That usually isn't good enough to persuade the court to tie up the money. Defendants usually get to do what they wish with their money until the plaintiff wins.

If the court lets Gold get the cash, Leyser might be more inclined to settle. After all, the lawyers are eating up a lot of the potential money.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
gold is going to lose badly. the voice mail message alone contradicts most of his claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. That is the part that just defies logic. If you decided to give someone half your money because you felt sorry for them as a gift and they were hounding you to promise them that you were going to stick to the free money plan, would you say "there is no possible way you aren't going to get your half" on a voice mail? That's absurd. You'd say "You ungrateful SOB, stop calling me or I won't give you a dime."

The voice mail is much more consistent with Leyser's story. However, the Bodog contract doesn't support Leyser at all. It is just calls for Gold to wear the gear and show up at a few press deals. It doesn't say anything about getting celebrities.

The question of what Bodog required Gold to do (if they had some demands that weren't in the written contract) is going to be a big deal to prove in discovery. If Gold didn't *have* to provide celebs, Leyser's case is much weaker.

It does seem clear that Gold promised to pay half and then backed out. He basically admits that. He just says that he didn't decide not to pay until after he was sued. So the key legal issue will be was the promise to pay half an oral contract in exchange for celebs or was it a promise to make a gift? A promise to make a gift isn't worth crap.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]


The question of tax liability is an interesting and complex one. I really don't know what the answer is. It seems to me that if Gold's position is that it is his money, he owes taxes on it. The fact that it is tied up in litigation is not going to change that.


[/ 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 ]

I also think there is a pretty good chance that the court releases the $6 million that Harrah's is currently holding to Gold. In essence, Leyser's argument is that if the court lets Gold get to the money, he might spend it all. That usually isn't good enough to persuade the court to tie up the money. Defendants usually get to do what they wish with their money until the plaintiff wins.



[/ 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.

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.

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]

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

which means that his lawyers have managed to cast a reasonable doubt in the minds of the 2+2 jury that there was any deal. I'm no expert, but it hardly looks like a lock for Leyser. I wonder what Leyser would be willing to settle for to end this. I know my figure would be a lot lower than 6M.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

Proving an oral contract is always difficult. I don't know the facts, but I think that the plaintiff has an uphill fight.

When was the Voicemail left?
 

At what stage of the tournament did GOld leave that VM? If he left it when he was already in the money, then I think he obviously had some agreement to give Leyser half. But if he left the VM during the first couple of days of the tourney, then he probably didn't really think he was going to win and just said he would give the guy half as kind of a joking bravado thing. It's like when I buy a lottery ticket and I tell my friends I'll give them half.....I know I won't win. If someone told me I had already won the lottery, I wouldn't promise anyone half.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ 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 ]

His charming table mannerisms and dashing presence are clearly big winners for Bodog, no?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

he hired mark seif to be his lawyer?!?

Re: When was the Voicemail left?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At what stage of the tournament did GOld leave that VM? If he left it when he was already in the money, then I think he obviously had some agreement to give Leyser half.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day before the final table.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
he hired mark seif to be his lawyer?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember hearing that Seif is/was a lawyer before he played poker...and I guess in Leyeer's spot it's important to grab the first lawyer you can find?!? Or maybe Seif specializes in cases where tournament swaps aren't honored?!?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

I don't know when the other guy will host the files, so I'll put them up. They are fairly interesting reading.

Gold's Motion
Gold's Exhibits

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he hired mark seif to be his lawyer?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember hearing that Seif is/was a lawyer before he played poker...and I guess in Leyeer's spot it's important to grab the first lawyer you can find?!? Or maybe Seif specializes in cases where tournament swaps aren't honored?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess they knew each other and thought a quick phone call would get it done.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some amusing quotes from Gold's Declaration:

"I expressed a desire to take care of Leyser by sharing a portion of my winnings. I did not mean he would receive 50% of the winnings or that he was sharing my seat"

"I simply intended to make a gift to Leyser if I were to win any money because I felt bad for Leyser"

"During the tournament, Leyser asked me to document an agreement to pay half my winnings. I refused because no such agreement existed."

"Finally, after continued phone calls, I left Leyser a message that he would get "half after taxes"

"This was not a confirmation of any agreement, but a confirmation of my intention to take care of him."

[/ QUOTE ]

Having handled an awful lot of contract disputes, I smell serious [censored] in the lawyerly choice of words here. I'm sure no one needed me to tell them that.

This case is obviously going to settle and they should just get it over with.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

very interesting, thank you...

not sure what crispin's wanna be reality tv shows have to do with the lawsuit.. maneaters, lol.... also, sounds like gold stole Mrs. Robinson idea and turned into his milf thing...

i also don't see all the e-mails gold claims entered as exhibits???

My whole thought on this - Jules is hot!!! and guaranteed she dumps this Crispin loser, that's the only thing you can take to the bank in this whole mess..

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]

This case is obviously going to settle and they should just get it over with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost all cases settle.

There's no reason for Gold to settle now. He already has $6M. If Leyser really is broke, then Gold is just going to wait Leyser out until Leyser finally decides that $1-2M is better than nothing.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]

Gold = litigious douche bag. I hope he loses badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um.....didn't Leyser bring the lawsuit?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold wants to give him a "gift, but instead of filling out a form 5754, Gold prefers to pay taxes on the amount first? It doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
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."


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you can get a lawyer to say anything is "possible". The fact that hundreds of tourney winners make this 5754 election every year, and most of the recent ME winners, without adverse consequences, says that this is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

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."


[/ QUOTE ]

Jamie said he doesn't owe Leyser a share, but his lawyer claims they offered to pay Leyser his share? Contradictory, eh?

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Gold = litigious douche bag. I hope he loses badly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um.....didn't Leyser bring the lawsuit?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you do if someone owed you $6M and refused to pay, and refused to return your calls? Gold basically said, if you want your money, sue me.

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 ]

[ QUOTE ]
Two days after the final table Gold went on the rounders show Podcast. He mentioned Leyster. Calls him a wonderful friend, talks about the wonderful celebrities he helped recruit for team bodog.

He says that Bodog was going to pay for his (Gold's) entry for recruiting the celebrities and he wanted Bodog to give the entry to Leyster and he was going to buy his own way in. Bodog wouldn't do that because they had a relationship with him (Gold) and also understood that he was a great poker player, like Kobe coming out of highschool and that he had a legitimate chance to win this thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gold's own words will hang him. Besides the VM laying out that he owes Leyser half, he confirmed on tape that Leyser recruited the celebs for him. Leyser needs to show they had an agreement, and that he gave Gold something of value, and Gold's big mouth has established both points for Leyser.

It's going to be very difficult for a judge to believe that they didn't have a valid agreement. Gold has independantly confirmed the key points of Leyser's assertion, to believe that the remaining details aren't as Leyser says strains credulity.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]

Jamie said he doesn't owe Leyser a share, but his lawyer claims they offered to pay Leyser his share? Contradictory, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'd call that compromise. They cannot agree so Gold is smart enough to know that once Crispin files suit he is in his best interest to only pay what the court decides is fair, or based on the strength of the case evidence when Crispin comes to the table with a reasonable settlement offer.

My guess - he settles for 1 million. Not a penny more (and he might have gotten more if he wasn't so litigious). The plaintiff's case is mighty thin, Gold has great supporting evidence for his statements, even with the answering machine message. Reading through his BoDog contract is very enlightening... remember BoDog employees can't easily be forced to testify, thats a huge advantage for Gold, leaving the BoDog contract (which was never signed by the marketing company, oddly a common enough scenario in these situations) as a tough hurdle to jump over.

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

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
The deal between Bodog and Gold isn't irrelevant, but it's not dispositive, either. What really matters is the deal between Gold and Leyser.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

It's not clear from Gold's declaration when Leyser procured the two pseudo-celebrities.

Gold's contract with Bodog is dated July 13, 2006. If Leyser produced the celebrities after that, his case is weakened (since Gold already had his WSOP seat). If it was before that, however, he can argue that Gold only got the Bodog contract because Leyser got the celebrities.

Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
 

Leyser's case actually seems rather weak, though its always possible for a judge to overlook the most condemning sections against Leyser consider; he must show that Gold's agreement (which is confirmed from the voicemail) was in return for Leyser's acquisition of the Bodog celebrities. If it was merely a gift, there is something lacking, which, in legal terms is called consideration, and without consideration the success of Leyser's case significantly decreases.

On another note, in Exhibit 3, Leyser and his wife who are playing a tournament online both make it in the money on the same table, and are playing in the same room? That constitutes blatant collusion if you ask me and collusion should result in a confiscation of their poker funds. Then they would really be hard up to sue Gold. Also where did you find pics of Leyser's wife?