Gold responds in some detail to allegations

[Keyser.]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exhibit 3 didn't really mention that they were playing the same tournament, just that they were in the same room.

Exhibit 3 was also hilarious as it was about Leyser playing a donk-and-go and generally being pathetic.

[teddyFBI]

96% of people in this thread apparently think trials in this country work just like they see on Judge Judy, where each side explains their case, and then whomever has the more persuasive and logical argument wins.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the litigation process is far less sexy than what's portrayed on Law and Order / CSI. Less than 10% of civil cases ever actually go to trial. A settlement is the overwhelmingly most likely endgame.

Both sides will file briefs with the court, then will make motions and cross-motions for summary judgement (essentially claiming that the case isn't even worthy of going to trial; pretty routine for both sides to file these even if they don't think it's a very strong argument), exchange some settlement proposals and agree on one.

My personal opinion based on settlements trends i've seen in my brief exposure to litigation: I'd be very surprised if Leyser got more than a half million (imagine what that will dwindle to after lawyer fees / taxes), but if/when it settles, chances are we'll never know what the terms are unless one party discloses them, but there'll prob be a confidentiality arrangement.

[teddyFBI]

I second the submission that there are several legalese statements that rate very, very highly on the unintentional comedy scale in those docs (for law nerds, that is, which is a pretty low hurdle to clear). E.g.:

[teddyFBI]

I have yet to see anyone post the transcript of the infamous phone message so I'll do it here. (Bold added by me for emphasis) This in no way comments on the legal merits of the case; just on JG's apparent set of moral values. By the way, I got this from http://www.nsidestrate.com/blog/ which has a very good summary in the Oct 18th post of what's going on, and what might go down from a legal perspective.

<font color="blue">Hey, it’s Jamie, thank you for your message. I slept pretty well so we should be fine. I have a real good plan on what to do for today. Thank you for all your help. I wanted to let you know about the money. You’re obviously very well protected, everything will be fine but nothing’s going to happen today, that’s for sure. I have the best tax attorneys and the best minds in the business working for me from New York and LA and what we’re probably going to do is set up a Nevada Corporation and it’s going to … I have to pay you out of the corporation. I can’t just pay personally because I could get nailed. So it might take a few days, so please be patient. I promise you — you can keep this recording on my word — there’s no possible way you’re not going to your hal … after taxes. So please just be with me. I can’t imagine you’re going to have a problem with it. I just don’t want any stress about any money or any of that [censored] going on today, or even after the end of the day. I’m sure you’re going to be fine; you’re going to be very well taken care of, absolutely fairly. We’re just trying to handle this properly and after now I don’t even want to talk about it or think about it. But please just trust me. You’ve trusted me the whole way, you can trust me a little bit more. I promise you that there’s no way anybody will go anywhere with your money. It’s your money. Alright, I send you love, than you for your support … </font>

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

p.s. this is a civil case, not a criminal one.
"reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof only for criminal cases. In civil ones it is only required to prove that something is "more likely than not" &gt;&gt; in other words, that there's a greater than 50% chance.

Gold needs to do far more than prove a 'reasonable doubt.'

[blackjack777]

I had a guy sue me in court, civil, small claims last year for just under 5 grand.

He had witnesses that saw me accept money from him, but then said I only paid back 1 grand, when in fact, I had paid off the other four to him personally in cash, (2 I won back betting football, the other 2 I paid him through Paradise Poker)

So we go to court, and I am ticked because this is just a waste of time, no agreement, nothing in writing, just his witnesses who saw him loan me 5 grand in chips while in Reno.

Guess what? My evidence showing I paid him 2 grand through paradise wasn't honored because internet gambling isn't recognized by the court. He admitted I paid him 1 grand of it, so the balance was 4 grand, the judge split it in half, and I was ordered to pay him 2 grand.

That was 8 months ago or so. I pay the courts 10 dollars a month, because I don't want to break the law by not paying, but he absolutely raped me in court.

All this to say, the courts will do what they want, logic doesn't always win in a civil trial.

[teddyFBI]

This raises an interesting argument that Gold is making too: he's arguing that California contract law should apply, which does not permit enforcement of gambling contracts.

I suspect, though, that this is in reference to people making bets with each other -- e.g. you and I draw up a contract betting $100 on a football game; that's unenforceable in CA. I don't think that the Gold/Leyser agreement fits within the scope of the "gambling contract" that CA law means to prohibit. I'm not well-versed in this area though.

One thing is certain, though -- it appears that Leyser's decision to jump the gun and file this lawsuit may /hyperbole warning/ go down as one of the all-time bonehead plays in civil litigation. Although we'll never know, it appears that Gold did (at one point) have an intention to pay Leyser half, or at least stated that he did. And that he simply reconsidered after Leyser started filing all this litigation (at which point Gold retained legal counsel, who likely pointed out to him that he might not even have any responsibility to pay Leyser a dime.)

The true stupidity of Leyser's move, of course, is that his initial litigious volley wasn't even an outright claim to half the money. It was simply an injunction to get Harrah's not to pay Gold on the theory that it belonged to him. Such motions are typically made when there is a concern that one party might dispose of the assets before a full trial on the merits can be heard. It would make sense if there was some concern on Leyser's part that Gold would piss away the money, disappear, or otherwise put the cash beyond his reach. But the likelihood of that happening was close to nil, with Gold's new celebrity, seemingly legitimate business practice, etc. E.g. he's not the kind you'd worry about fleeing the country, or disappearing. (Of course he could donk away the money TRAPPING pros in the big game.)

Bottom line is that there was nothing stopping Leyser from deciding at a later date to file suit laying claim to half that prize money. The preliminary injunction action (which is what he DID file, successfully) served absolutely no purpose other than to keep the money with Harrah's and piss of the guy who allegedly owes you $6 mil on a promise, which may or may not be legally enforceable.

Leyser's lawyer did a piss-poor job. He should have reviewed the facts and alerted Leyser that his contractual claim to that money was very, very tenuous, and should've at least got him to consider the possibility that such a preemptive strike could cause Gold to reverse course completely, and leave Leyser without a leg to stand on. (Of course maybe he did bring this facts to Leysers attention, and they opted to go ahead with the prelim injunction suit anyway...) My analysis: Leyser (and possibly his lawyer) screwed up big time on this one.

[NoSoup4U]

It appears that Gold was willing to offer a deal where he paid Leyser something like $3 million and held $3 million in an interest-bearing escrow account while the tax issues were sorted. If Seif passed on that deal, it is going to look like a very bad choice by the end of this whole thing, I'm sure.

[Spaggy]

Not that I claim to know specifics, or that I care too much about this (only they know the whole story), my opinion is that Gold now has the upper hand in this case.

The fact that Leyser is now being shown as somebody hounding Gold over the money he was supposed to get defames Leyser's character enough to make it questionable whether it's "more likely than not" Gold promised half of his winnings. Also, if there was an offer for 3m and 3m escrow for tax concerns and Seif refused the offer, the case is lost for Leyser. He will end up settling for nothing.

While Gold comes across as an arrogant prick to some (personally I don't think he's that annoying), I would say it's "more likely than not" that Gold is as, if not more, intelligent than Leyser, and has the financial situation to receive better consulting and representation in court.

Also, isn't Gold also fairly wealthy prior to the prize from the WSOP? I would think that would add credibility to his point that Leyser was money hounding him and he left the VM to get him off his back for a while.

Long and short, I agree with TT on this one, just not worded as well.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that Leyser is now being shown as somebody hounding Gold over the money he was supposed to get defames Leyser's character enough to make it questionable whether it's "more likely than not" Gold promised half of his winnings. Also, if there was an offer for 3m and 3m escrow for tax concerns and Seif refused the offer, the case is lost for Leyser. He will end up settling for nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh; although i know u don't hold yourself out to have any particular legal knowledge, figured i'd just set one thing straight that a lot of people seem confused about. It makes no difference that Gold promised anything to Leyser. A promise, lacking consideration (or reasonable reliance) is not binding. Gold could have grabbed a bullhorn, stood up on top of the final table and proclaimed "I, Jamie Gold, promise to give 50% of my winnings to Leyser", and it would have absolutely no legal weight to it. Promises are not legally binding, when they lack "consideration" (roughly speaking, this is something that Leyser would do in return for the money. That's why this case might hinge on the nature of his agreement with Bodog, and whether there was ever any agreement for Leyser to procure celebrities.

If i get motivated, i might make a Contracts-101 type post that hopefully would clear this all up; although i hope the preceding paragraph did that.