Jamie Gold's Side Of Story Regarding Lawsuit

[bmtphs05 0]

from CardPlayer.comhttp://cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/7678World Series of Poker Main Event champion Jamie Gold has finally told his version of what took place with Crispin Leyser during the WSOP tournament in a motion filed at the U.S. District Court of Nevada on Wednesday, November 1, 2006.According to Gold’s motion, while he admits to making a promise to compensate Leyser, it was merely a gift that he was making to help Leyser out after he could not secure his own entry into the World Series of Poker Main Event. Gold’s motion goes on to cite that despite not having an obligation to do so, he was still going to share some of his winnings. It was at this point however that things began to rapidly deteriorate as Leyser, “acted unreasonably and refused to recognize necessary expenses or provide protection to Gold for legitimate tax issues.”Leyser then decided to take legal action against Gold, drawing an absorbent amount of media attention to the situation in an attempt to try and discredit Gold’s reputation. After serious consideration, Gold decided that he was no longer going to share his winnings with Leyser.Stating that the two met via Leyser’s wife Jules, Gold apparently was trying to help Leyser who according to the motion, “had serious financial problems. In fact, Leyser was unemployed and playing poker online in an attempt to pay his rental obligations in California.”Unlike Leyser’s assertion that Gold had promised him a share of his winnings for securing two celebrities to represent Bodog, Gold denies this outright. “Gold did not discuss sharing the proceeds from Gold’s participation in the WSOP – let alone agree to do so in exchange for Plaintiff (Leyser) securing celebrities.”Gold’s motion goes on to say that Leyser’s actions during the Main Event were basically harassment, with him constantly sending text messages and calling the future champion before, during, and after his time on the felt. Having his hands full with WSOP play, Gold eventually called Leyser to try to get him to let him focus on the tournament. This call is a major piece of Leyser’s argument against Gold, but according to Gold, the message he left on Leyser’s phone was to get him to leave Gold alone during the final day of competition.Eventually Gold went on to win the title and the $12 million first-place prize. According to Gold’smotion, it was at this point things started spiraling toward a legal battle as Leyser got WSOP bracelet-winner and attorney Mark Seif to contact Gold’s recently hired tax attorney, Sam Israel. According to the court documents, Seif insisted that Leyser receive the money immediately.According to Israel, there were tax issues regarding Gold’s direct distribution of his winnings, specifically potential IRS audits and Gold’s possible inability to deduct business expenses. Seif however persisted, claiming to have found a loophole that would have allowed Leyser to avoid taxes should he return to his native British Isles. “In other words, once Leyser received any distribution of funds he intended to leave the country without paying taxes,” the motion said.What happened next is matter of public record as Leyser filed an injunction against Gold on September 13, 2006. The court granted Leyser’s injunction, holding $6 million of Gold’s $12 million winnings. According to Gold’s motion, Leyser is not entitled to injunctive relief because there is no threat of irreparable harm and because Leyser has not met the burden of showing the existence of the necessity elements of an enforceable contract.As things continue to heat up between Gold and Leyser, make sure to stay tuned to Cardplayer.com for more updates.

[showstopper24 0]

interesting article-still can't decide whats real

[Petoria 0]

interesting article-still can't decide whats real

I dont trust a word that comes out of Jamie Gold's mouth.

[try__an__hit 0]

Interesting.

[CaneBrain 95]

I dont trust a word that comes out of Jamie Gold's mouth.

I dont either. However, if even half this article is true then there is no way Gold loses this lawsuit.proving enforcibility on verbal contracts is an uphill battle.

[offset 0]

proving enforcibility on verbal contracts is an uphill battle.

I assume that since Gold acknowledged the agreement in a recorded message this is not the case.

[CaneBrain 95]

I assume that since Gold acknowledged the agreement in a recorded message this is not the case.

did he? that is for now unclear. even if he did it wont necessarily stick....there will have to be more than a phone message unless that message is very clear on terms and/or conditions.just saying verbal contracts are worth the paper they are printed on. old joke.

[chrozzo 19]

i wish i had a pen because i would absolutely never write any of that down

[offset 0]

did he? that is for now unclear. even if he did it wont necessarily stick....there will have to be more than a phone message unless that message is very clear on terms and/or conditions.just saying verbal contracts are worth the paper they are printed on. old joke.

Yes, he did and it was very clear. He clearly stated that he was going to give Leyser half.

[CaneBrain 95]

Yes, he did and it was very clear. He clearly stated that he was going to give Leyser half.

I had not heard that. Obviously that changes everything. Obviously the above article disputes this.....

[FourFlusher 0]

Seif is a lawyer? I did not know this.

[offset 0]

I had not heard that. Obviously that changes everything. Obviously the above article disputes this.....

True, but it is written by Gold's lawyers. They want to put as much spin on it as they can.

[CaneBrain 95]

True, but it is written by Gold's lawyers. They want to put as much spin on it as they can.

Of course....but anything written by Leyser's lawyers would have the same type of bias. eh whatever....i will be curious to see how it plays out. I predict Leyser gets some money but less than 6 mill. Maybe 2 mill because they end up settling.

[Tiltinagain 973]

Jamie Gold WON the WSOP????sw obviously

[Petoria 0]

I dont either. However, if even half this article is true then there is no way Gold loses this lawsuit.proving enforcibility on verbal contracts is an uphill battle.

Jamie Gold was answering real fast, I think he's weak.

[WayneDG99 0]

Jamie Gold was answering real fast, I think he's weak.

[atari2600 0]

did he? that is for now unclear. even if he did it wont necessarily stick....there will have to be more than a phone message unless that message is very clear on terms and/or conditions.just saying verbal contracts are worth the paper they are printed on. old joke.

He does acknowledge the deal for half in his voicemail mesage, if this transcript is correct. Link to transcript at Court TV

[SoCooLBob 0]

He does acknowledge the deal for half in his voicemail mesage, if this transcript is correct. Link to transcript at Court TV

And ... he's busy preparing a defense including that the phone call was made under duress.Don't know that the court will be able to find "evidence of the terms of said contract" ... without testimony other than the parties ... it's hard to enforce a contract without terms ... But, everybody's right. It should be very interesting to see how it all comes out.Question ... Do you suppose "bluffing" is a defense ?Yes, your honor, I said those things, but I was bluffing.

[terradawg 0]

clearly, gold is trying to portray the so-called deal as a gift promise. you see, if he can portray it as a gift promise then it is not a binding contract. this is kind of like your uncle saying, "i'll give you $10,000 if you go to college." unless there is some form of consideration or reliance on your part then he is not obligated to pay you anything.

[Balloon guy 158]

Question ... Do you suppose "bluffing" is a defense ?Yes, your honor, I said those things, but I was bluffing.

[TylerSalzman 0]

Does anyone here really feel that He should have to give that guy six million? Does that seem fair to anyone? It seems a little unreasonable to me. I mean, it's not like the guy staked Gold or really did anything all that important. That guy should be happy with anything over a grand.

[timwakefield 68]

Leyser then decided to take legal action against Gold, drawing an absorbent amount of media attention to the situation in an attempt to try and discredit Gold’s reputation.

It seems like all you need to get a job for Cardplayer is the ability to spell the word poker. An ABSORBENT amount of media attention? Do they even proofread these things? It's not even like he just spelled something wrong, he just used a word that kind of sounded similar to the one he wanted.

[CaneBrain 95]

Does anyone here really feel that He should have to give that guy six million? Does that seem fair to anyone? It seems a little unreasonable to me. I mean, it's not like the guy staked Gold or really did anything all that important. That guy should be happy with anything over a grand.

I agree with you and believe they should settle out of court for two million. Leyser gets a cool million after taxes that way which is MORE than enough compensation for what he did.

[offset 0]

Does anyone here really feel that He should have to give that guy six million? Does that seem fair to anyone? It seems a little unreasonable to me. I mean, it's not like the guy staked Gold or really did anything all that important. That guy should be happy with anything over a grand.

They had a deal. It is only unfair that Gold is trying to back out of his word.

I agree with you and believe they should settle out of court for two million. Leyser gets a cool million after taxes that way which is MORE than enough compensation for what he did.

I think Leyser has the edge in this case. I do not see him settling for any less than 3 million.

[James D 0]

I think that if they can't decide who gets what... whether Leyser gets 6 million, less or whatever, within 1 month, then the full 12 million should be given to Dimitri Nobles - under one condition...He must play 10k hands of high stakes poker. That way, at least the money would be re distributed back into the poker community.