NY Times article on Jamie Gold

[Los Feliz Slim]

[ QUOTE ]
ahh this guy is a scumbag LA entertainment agent who has had dealings with nefarious types ie pornographers.
These guys [censored] and piss on everyone on there way up the ladder

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't mind me asking, on what information do you base this generalization?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


If you don't mind me asking, on what information do you base this generalization?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is NVG. My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Turning Stone Pro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]“We don’t believe Mr. Leyser is entitled to any money as a matter of law,” he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

An oral agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is, if there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration by both parties (something given by the acceptor in reliance on the offer). The only problem with an oral contract is proving it in Court by a preponderance of the evidence. For this, the phone messages left by Gold will not be enough: it must be proven that there was an offer and Leyser (or whatever his name is) not only accepted it, but met his obligations pursuant to the agreement. Shaggy and the other bozo's testimony as to Leyser's approaching them and convincing them to wear Bodog's clothing will be paramount.

For Leyser's sake, I hope that he got affidavits sworn to by both of these characters before the **** hit the fan, and prior to their having a chance to 'forget' what happened during the last week of July. The affidivits would be hearsay and inadmissible in Court, but could deter these fellows from testifying to the contrary at trial under the threat of cross-examination. These affidavits (especially when coupled with the tape recording) could even form the basis of a meritorious motion for summary judgment brought by Lesyer, arguing that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute and judgment should be granted as a matter of law (without the necessity of a trial).

A gratiutious offer by Gold to give Leyser 1/2 of his proceeds in a phone message will not be enough for Leyser to prevail. An offer by Gold without any consideration by Leyser will result in Gold being victorious. The phone messages are strong evidence, however, that Leyser did live up to his end of the bargain and procured the clowns necessary for Bodog to fork over Gold's 10k entry.

The statute of frauds (which requires that certain contracts be in writing) (e.g., contracts for real property, contracts that cannot be performed within 1 year) is inapplicable in the instant action, and will not bar recovery by Leyser.

Lastly, if the Court does find that a valid contract existed, the Court will not reduce Leyser's recovery because the work he performed might not seem to be "worth" $6M. Even if the contract appears potentially unfair, if there are two persons in an equal or reasonably equal bargaining position who make an agreement, with an offer, acceptance, and consideration, a Court will not modify the contract unless it finds coercion, duress, or unconscionability. IMO, none of these factors are applicable.

Just some random thoughts from a layperson. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]



TSP

[Willy]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with goodguy that the reason Gold might be running-away is because he has been a scum-bag BEFORE and there are possibly some who have despised him or he has screwed-over for some time.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ha! I get it now. The call to Leyser was a misdial. He was really calling the nefarious types to tell them they would get their money. When the nefarious types didnt get the call, they made a death threat. It all makes sense now it's a made for TV movie. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Gomez]

Since you sound like you have some knowledge of the subject, how much are these guys likely to spend in legal fees if the case goes to trial?

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]

Otherwise, great points. I don't get the Times on Sunday and imagine the online one costs money (I know at the very least I have to register...annoying) so I appreciate the excerpts.

[/ QUOTE ]
BugMeNot is your friend.

[MicroBob]

One other aspect I had forgotten to mention:




[ QUOTE ]
Deals are common among players, many of whom swap percentages of their winnings to guarantee equity even during a losing streak, and verbal agreements are considered ironclad. “It’d be unprecedented not to pay,” Mr. Gordon said of such deals.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know much about such stuff. But it's hard for me to believe that Gordon's assertion is accurate.
Certainly somebody, somewhere has squelched on a deal or two before.
These are poker-players we're talking about here. Not everybody is the most upstanding individual.


Haven't some players hit the door after selling more than 100% of themselves as stakes and then 'accidentally' winning thus putting themselves in a position where they were incapable of paying everyone?


I'm not disagreeing that it's unusual to not pay.
But there's a pretty big difference between 'unusual' and 'unprecedented'.

[Turning Stone Pro]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you sound like you have some knowledge of the subject, how much are these guys likely to spend in legal fees if the case goes to trial?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, not as much as you might think, based on what I understand the issues to be. Obviously, the more pre-trial motions and hearings there are, this will make the fees jump significantly.

At, say, $300 to $400 per hour, the fees to prepare for and try the case could be as little as $30k for each side, perhaps up to $60-70k each if things get complicated (which could certainly happen).

This is really just a guess, though. I'm not familiar with the billing practices in the jurisdiction where the case is pending, and really do not know the facts other than those that have been highly publicized.

Some things that could add to the cost would be if several out-of-country Bodog employees need to be issued subpoenas and compelled to testify. There shouldn't be the need for any expert witnesses, with the exception of accountant-types to testify as to the tax implications or present value of the money at issue. This will definitely add to the bill.

TSP

[schundler]

"A former talent agent and manager with a respectable list of clients to his credit, he had just embarked on a career as a television producer and was about to start casting for a reality show called “Hottest Mom in America.”"

does his winning mean this show isn't happening.....?????

[Kevmath]

That particular project was announced last week.

Edit: Although it may have been in the planning stages just before the main event.