|
|
#31
11-02-2006, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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.. 
|
|
#32
11-02-2006, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#34
11-03-2006, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
|
#35
11-03-2006, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#36
11-03-2006, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#37
11-03-2006, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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]
|
|
#38
11-03-2006, 02:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#39
11-03-2006, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#40
11-03-2006, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
