Gold responds in some detail to allegations

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing is that it isn't strictly required that Gold had to procure celebs in exchange for his seat. All that is really required is that Gold promised half his prize in exchange for those celebs to Leyser and they agreed. Obviously, if Gold wasn't required to provide them, that makes it more difficult for Leyser to prove it, but as they say in Contracts 101 the court doesn't get into questions of the sufficiency of the consideration.

It occurs to me that I picked up a lot just being AROUND law school.

Its also funny to me how often TV and public perception about the law revolve around completely different decision points than real cases usually do.

[vanwely]

Leyser will recieve a complimentary World Series of Poker T-shirt and a bottle of ripple. I sight the precedent of Grizzle v Tuna, Nev. 2001

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being able to have BoDog employees testify hurts Gold's case. What judge is going to believe that Gold offered half solely as a gift, and that Gold's admission that the plaintiff procured celebrities for him was not part of any agreement (another "gift")? The evidence is so compelling that some sort of agreement existed, and some sort of quid pro quo took place, that if Gold can't produce substantial evidence to the contrary (including testimony by BoDog employees) a judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's.

At least Judge Judy would. If it was in her court Gold would have already recieved his tongue-lashing....

[NCAces]

[ 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" >> in other words, that there's a greater than 50% chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it matters, but that would be what is officially called a "preponderance of the evidence." As you state, 50.1% to 49.9% is good enough.

That is why OJ got nailed in Civil Court, but got off in criminal court.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are spot on with your analysis. There are probably more issues, but the crux of the case revolves around whether there was "consideration" for Gold's promise to pay half.

The word "consideration" in this context means that to make a legally binding contract, both parties have to give something of value (or forgo something that has value) in order for it to be a binding contract.

If, I say, Bill, you are a good guy ... if I win, I am going to give you half of my winnings, there is no consideration unless you provide something of value to me (half the cost of my ticket, buy-in, hotel costs, whatever) or forgo something you would have otherwise done (I won't play against you if you give me half of what you win). So, I win and tell Bill to pound sand ... he doesn't have a legal agreement with me because a gift (or even a promise of a gift ... what we have here) is not enforceable.

The phone call makes it look really bad in a non-legal way. Really bad. And, he may be a scumbag for saying it and not following through on it. But, Leyser is absolutely going to have to show that there was some reason that he was to get the 50%, other than Gold being a nice guy.

By the way, according to Doug Kim, he and a couple other guys swapped percentages of themselves prior to the ME. That is consideration ... I give you 2%, you give me 3% ... both sides are giving up something of value (albeit unknown at that time). The typical consideration in "backing" situations is that I paid to get you in the tournament ... plenty of consideration. That type of thing simply seems to be missing here and was why I was so reluctant to jump on Gold early on like others were ... I figured that had to be more to the deal.

My personal opinion is that Gold is a douche for not manning up to his promise. But, I am guessing for $6 million he probably doesn't give a sh!t about what anyone else thinks. That Leyser filed the suit probably gave him all the ammo he needed to rationalize that he is doing the right thing.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reading through his Bodog contract is very enlightening... remember Bodog employees can't easily be forced to testify, that's 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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being able to have Bodog employees testify hurts Gold's case. What judge is going to believe that Gold offered half solely as a gift, and that Gold's admission that the plaintiff procured celebrities for him was not part of any agreement (another "gift")? The evidence is so compelling that some sort of agreement existed, and some sort of quid pro quo took place, that if Gold can't produce substantial evidence to the contrary (including testimony by BoDog employees) a judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's.

At least Judge Judy would. If it was in her court Gold would have already received his tongue-lashing....

[/ QUOTE ]

First, this won't be decided by a judge ... it will be decided by a jury. There are facts in dispute here which would preclude a Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgement. If it doesn't settle -- which will simply have to happen given Leyser's financial difficulties and the recording -- a jury will decide this.

Second, what source do you have for the certainty of your opinions ... "evidence is so compelling" ... "judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's." Me thinks you've never been involved in litigation. I assure you there is so much going on here that we don't know about it isn't even funny. To make such sweeping assumptions as to the facts and evidence is ... well, it NVG, I suppose.

I also have to disagree with you on who will be hurt the most by Bodog's presumed absence. Remember that Leyser has the burden of proof -- he has to prove their was consideration. How can he do that without something from Bodog? And, if Bodog does decide to get involved in some way, it is really over for Leyser -- assuming they can avoid getting involved, the only way they will is if it helps Gold. They aren't going to help taking down their own golden boy.

I don't mean this to be a critical post ... I agree with your sentiment about someone honoring what they say they are going to do. But from a legal perspective, there is a lot more to be considered.

NCAces

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, what source do you have for the certainty of your opinions ... "evidence is so compelling" ... "judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's."

[/ QUOTE ]
A good source would be Gold's declaration. Gold admits that Leyser came up with a few celebrities, and Gold also admits that Gold promised Leyser a share of his winnings.

The poster you're responding to is inferring from those facts that there was a quid pro quo -- that neither one was just doing the other a favor as a gift.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember that Leyser has the burden of proof -- he has to prove their was consideration. How can he do that without something from Bodog?

[/ QUOTE ]
By testifying directly on that issue. It's not hard to imagine that Leyser's testimony will be more believable than Gold's.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second, what source do you have for the certainty of your opinions ... "evidence is so compelling" ... "judge has to conclude that Leyser's account is much, much, closer to the truth than Gold's."

[/ QUOTE ]
A good source would be Gold's declaration. Gold admits that Leyser came up with a few celebrities, and Gold also admits that Gold promised Leyser a share of his winnings.

The poster you're responding to is inferring from those facts that there was a quid pro quo -- that neither one was just doing the other a favor as a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point still stands ... no one other than the parties involved can make those kinds of conclusions right now. What has be revealed in the pleadings and public disclosure thus far is the tip of the fact/evidence iceberg.

Then again, as I also said, this is NVG ... so have at it.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember that Leyser has the burden of proof -- he has to prove their was consideration. How can he do that without something from Bodog?

[/ QUOTE ]
By testifying directly on that issue. It's not hard to imagine that Leyser's testimony will be more believable than Gold's.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have seen, the only possible consideration was procuring celebrity players. No way that issue is resolved by either Gold's or Leyser's testimony, IMHO.

Besides, if either of these guys is willing to take a chance for 6 million on he-says, he-says scenario, they are both the idiots they so far appear to be.

NCAces

[buckslayer80]

[ 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 ]

Bingo in my book now that this "new" side of the story is coming out.

[KingGeorgeC]

[ 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 ]

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.