Gold responds in some detail to allegations

[NoSoup4U]

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?

[NoSoup4U]

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."

[shaniac]

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

[NoSoup4U]

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.

[e_phemeral]

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

[shaniac]

[ 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?

[talentdeficit]

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

[NoSoup4U]

[ 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.

[NoSoup4U]

[ 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.

[DesertCat]

[ 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.