|
|
#61
11-06-2006, 03:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 ] I don't see this happening. Gold is going to lose some of his money but I don't see half of it going away. My guess is this clown will get $1M and Chesnoff will get at lest half of that. 
|
|
#62
11-06-2006, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ 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 don't see this as being remotely possible anytime soon. Gold has $6M of the prize already and can do what he wishes with it. It would be difficult at best for him to convince Judge Hunt that he needs the other $6M before the matter is settled. Well, hopefully settled because if it is not this will drag for a couple years and the attorneys will wind up splitting a good chunk of the $6M in question.
|
|
#63
11-06-2006, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ QUOTE ]
It would be difficult at best for him to convince Judge Hunt that he needs the other $6M before the matter is settled. Well, hopefully settled because if it is not this will drag for a couple years and the attorneys will wind up splitting a good chunk of the $6M in question. [/ QUOTE ] You don't appear to understand the legal requirements for the restraining order. If Judge Hunt believes that Gold does not need the money, he should certainly free it up. Leyser must prove that it is quite likely that Gold will spend or hide the money if he is allowed to hang on to it and that Leyser will never be able to get it. As far as I can tell, there is little to support that view.
|
|
#66
11-07-2006, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ QUOTE ]
You don't appear to understand the legal requirements for the restraining order. If Judge Hunt believes that Gold does not need the money, he should certainly free it up. Leyser must prove that it is quite likely that Gold will spend or hide the money if he is allowed to hang on to it and that Leyser will never be able to get it. As far as I can tell, there is little to support that view. [/ QUOTE ] OK, I don't understand. Then explain to us why Rio Properties continues to hold onto the $6M? Clearly, the judge is concerned enough about Gold's earlier stated desire to funnel the cash through a corporate entity to keep the money at the Rio until the matter is resolved. Chesnoff is correct to argue that once that $6M gets into "Jamie, Inc." it will be even more difficult for his client to get his paws on what they percieve as his entitled share. That money is not moving anywhere until this matter is settled. Again, settled being the operative word. The judge will not stir the pot if there is a ANY chance of this being settled.
|
|
#67
11-07-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I don't understand. Then explain to us why Rio Properties continues to hold onto the $6M? Clearly, the judge is concerned enough about Gold's earlier stated desire to funnel the cash through a corporate entity to keep the money at the Rio until the matter is resolved. Chesnoff is correct to argue that once that $6M gets into "Jamie, Inc." it will be even more difficult for his client to get his paws on what they percieve as his entitled share. That money is not moving anywhere until this matter is settled. Again, settled being the operative word. The judge will not stir the pot if there is a ANY chance of this being settled. [/ QUOTE ] At this point, the judge has never heard from both sides on the matter. The process goes like this: 1) Plaintiff asks for a TRO until a full hearing can be held on the matter. The standard of proof required for the plaintiff to get this is extremely low. 2) The Defendant either lets it ride or protests and requests a full hearing on the matter. If he requests a full hearing both sides file briefs 3) The judge sets a hearing for both sides to argue their side and he makes a decision. We just hit #2, with #3 set for Nov 27. This is the first time Gold will have really made his case in front of a judge. I don't think it is a slam dunk for either side, but there is a very real chance that the judge frees up the money. He may require Gold to post some kind of bond or make some middle ground deal, I don't know. All I'm saying is that there is a significant legal hurdle besides finding that Leyser is likely to win. He has to also find that Gold is likely to dispose of the money and so far the only thing I've seen from Leyser is "he is a gambler and likely to lose it all." I don't think that is going to be good enough.
|
|
#68
11-08-2006, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ QUOTE ]
My whole thought on this - Jules is hot!!! [/ QUOTE ] This is not so much true, at least in person. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble. She's OK at best.
|
|
#69
11-08-2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
Gold speaking on the Rounders show:
[ QUOTE ] “…he [Crispin] was very helpful in securing some celebraties for the BoDog celebraty team and for that um they offered me – and I felt bad, and I said you know what maybe you should be offering it to Crispin and I’m going to put up the money anyway and they said no. [Blah blah blah I’m awesome Blah Blah Blah] … [Bodog said] you’re not allowed to transfer this to Crispin. [Blah Blah Blah, I’m like Kobe Bryant so they wanted me to play] … Cause I had talked to [Crispin], and that is true, I had said maybe you should just play, and I’ll give it [the seat] to you, and [Bodog] said absolutely not." [/ QUOTE ] I think this really discounts the idea that there was no connection between the celebraties and the seat Bodog gave to Gold. So the question is, why then did Crispin get these celebraties for Gold? I think you might find that there was either vaguely defined consideration or consideration that couldn't be performed (a seat to crispin from Bodog, but Bodog wouldn't cough one up.) So, contract attorneys. Suppose that there is apparently consideration, but its vague. Will the courts allow the parties to clarify or substitute consideration if the original consideration is vague or unperformable? And can the parties do that after one party has fully performed? Suppose it went, Gold: "I'm trying to procure some celbraties for Bodog, can you help? If I do Bodog will provide give us something in return, Its not for sure, but I think we can get two seats to the ME for our celebraties. " Crispin: "Sounds good." Later: Gold: "Well you came up with the celebraties, but Bodog will only give us one seat and they insist I play it. So how about if I play and we split whatever I win." Crispin. "Ok". Contract?
|
|
#70
11-08-2006, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gold responds in some detail to allegations
[ QUOTE ]
I don't if it means anything, but Bodog used to have Gold all over their client software. You saw Gold when the software launched, and then in a side banner. The latest version does not have Gold at all. [/ QUOTE ] Presumably it means Bodog have some qualms about having an alleged welcher representing their gambling operation?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
