Jamie Gold Update

[Jrobb25 0]

I found this on cardplayer...looks as if this thing might take a while.A judge in the Jamie Gold/ Crispin Leyser case refused to lift a September injunction that froze half the World Series of Poker main event’s $12 million championship prize yesterday, but at least now the money just isn’t sitting in a vault at the Rio.Gold’s lawyers asked for the money to be given to Gold until the case was decided, but the judge said no. Both lawyers in the case agreed to have the money moved to an interest-bearing account. Leyser is suing Gold for the $6 million because he claims that Gold promised him half the winnings if he won the WSOP’s main event. Gold did, and Leyser claims soon after Gold told him the deal was off. Leyser claims Gold promised half the winnings in exchange for finding celebrity clients to play in the main event wearing Bodog gear. Leyser says he found two celebs to play -- Punk'd comedian Dax Shepard and Scooby Doo star Matthew Lillard -- and therefore, deserves half the winnings.

[HoosierAlum 0]

I found this on cardplayer...looks as if this thing might take a while.A judge in the Jamie Gold/ Crispin Leyser case refused to lift a September injunction that froze half the World Series of Poker main event’s $12 million championship prize yesterday, but at least now the money just isn’t sitting in a vault at the Rio.Gold’s lawyers asked for the money to be given to Gold until the case was decided, but the judge said no. Both lawyers in the case agreed to have the money moved to an interest-bearing account. Leyser is suing Gold for the $6 million because he claims that Gold promised him half the winnings if he won the WSOP’s main event. Gold did, and Leyser claims soon after Gold told him the deal was off. Leyser claims Gold promised half the winnings in exchange for finding celebrity clients to play in the main event wearing Bodog gear. Leyser says he found two celebs to play -- Punk'd comedian Dax Shepard and Scooby Doo star Matthew Lillard -- and therefore, deserves half the winnings.

Its looking more and more like Leyser is going to win this case.

[Jrobb25 0]

Its looking more and more like Leyser is going to win this case.

yes it does..your word should be your bond

[GrinderMJ 0]

Its looking more and more like Leyser is going to win this case.

Good. What a piece of shit he is for trying to get out of a backing deal essentially. I wouldn't be able to look at myself in a mirror if I knew I scammed somebody who helped me personally out of 6 million dollars.

[channjalen2003 0]

I bet Jamie would give it up if he knew SANTA put him on his naughty list.

[xmykro 0]

yes it does..your word should be your bond

Your word should be your bond, but it's NOT in the legal system.That's why you sign CONTRACTS in America, that is your only bond. It's going to be really hard for the judge to award someone money without having anything in writing.

[Mercury69 3]

Come on,people.Leyser doesn't have a case. He was supposed to get CELEBS, not fourth rate, recycled nobodies like Lillard and a comedian from a crappy show like Punk'd.

[Jrobb25 0]

Your word should be your bond, but it's NOT in the legal system.That's why you sign CONTRACTS in America, that is your only bond. It's going to be really hard for the judge to award someone money without having anything in writing.

It depends what state...You can definetly have an verbel aggrement...I dont know about Neveda though.

[Jrobb25 0]

Come on,people.Leyser doesn't have a case. He was supposed to get CELEBS, not fourth rate, recycled nobodies like Lillard and a comedian from a crappy show like Punk'd.

Obviously you didnt see without a paddle.....Oscar worthy

[crocd99 0]

Your word should be your bond, but it's NOT in the legal system.That's why you sign CONTRACTS in America, that is your only bond. It's going to be really hard for the judge to award someone money without having anything in writing.

this statement is mainly false

[PokerFan 0]

I'll chime in here...I'm betting Gold's attorney fees will be more money than any money Leyser gets.

[Mercury69 3]

Obviously you didnt see without a paddle.....Oscar worthy

O RLY?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Your word should be your bond, but it's NOT in the legal system.That's why you sign CONTRACTS in America, that is your only bond. It's going to be really hard for the judge to award someone money without having anything in writing.

Please understand the concept before you posts things that may be false.from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContractAll valid contracts must have the following elements:Terms: A set of clauses defining the exact set of promises agreed to.Mutual agreement: (see main article offer and acceptance): There must be an express or implied agreement. The essential requirement is that there be evidence that the parties had each from an objective perspective engaged in conduct manifesting their assent, and a contract will be formed when the parties have met such a requirement...For a contract based on offer and acceptance to be enforced, the terms must be capable of determination in a way that it is clear that the parties' assent was given to the same terms (think voicemails).Consideration: There must be consideration (see also consideration under English law) given by all the parties, meaning that every party is conferring a benefit on the other party or himself sustaining a recognizable detriment, which is a cost to a party, whatever it may be. Consideration need not be adequate, which means courts generally do not look to the value parties place on things contracted for, e.g. agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract. (Think about the two people Leyser got to play.)Competent, Adult (Sui Juris) Parties: Both parties must have the capacity to understand the terms of the contract they are entering into, and the consequences of the promises they make.Proper Subject Matter: The contract must have a lawful purpose. A contract to commit murder in exchange for money will not be enforced by the courts.Mutual Right to Remedy: Both parties must have an equal right to remedy upon breach of the terms by the other partyMutual Obligation to Perform: Both parties must have some obligation to fulfill to the other. This can be distinct from consideration, which may be an initial inducement into the contract.Intention to create legal relationship: There is a strict presumption for commercial agreements to be legally bound. Domestic and social agreements are usually unenforceable.Contractual formationOffer and acceptance: Perhaps the most important feature of a contract is that one party makes an offer for a bargain that another accepts. This can be called a 'concurrence of wills' or a 'meeting of the minds' of two or more parties.Consideration and estoppel: Consideration is a controversial requirement for contracts under common law. It is not necessary in civil law systems[7], and for that reason has come under increasing criticism. The idea is that both parties to a contract must bring something to the bargain. This can be either conferring an advantage on the other party, or incurring some kind of detriment or inconvenience. Three rules govern consideration.Intention to be legally bound: There is a presumption for commercial agreements that parties intend to be legally bound.Formalities and writing:Contrary to common wisdom, an informal exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract. A spoken contract should be called an "oral contract", but it is often erroneously called a "verbal contract." Any contract that uses words, spoken or written, is a verbal contract. Thus, all oral contracts and written contracts are verbal contracts.Uncertainty, incompleteness and severance: If the terms of the contract are uncertain or incomplete, the parties cannot have reached an agreement in the eyes of the law. An agreement to agree does not constitute a contract, and an inability to agree on key issues, which may include such things as price or safety, may cause the entire contract to fail. However, a court will attempt to give effect to commercial contracts where possible, by construing a reasonable construction of the contract.

[TylerSalzman 0]

Is there not a reasonable amount someone should get for the work that guy did. Obviously he doesn't deserve 6 ****ing million dollars for his 2 crappy celebs. I mean, Jaimie was probably planning on not winning any money. While I'm not a Jamie fan, I don't think that guy deserves 6 mil. Maybe a few grand or something

[CodyHartman 0]

So Gold is trying to back outta his word (allegedly. I bet this si only b/c it is so much. I wonder if say Jamie won 50k would he NOT have tried to back out of this alleged deal?any guess? (obvs this cant be determined, but I am curious what you think)

[mhoward29 0]

Is there not a reasonable amount someone should get for the work that guy did. Obviously he doesn't deserve 6 ****ing million dollars for his 2 crappy celebs. I mean, Jaimie was probably planning on not winning any money. While I'm not a Jamie fan, I don't think that guy deserves 6 mil. Maybe a few grand or something

Ya, because someone did alot better than they thought the deal should be off (sw). This guy got Jamie in the tourney, therefore he fulfilled his part of the bargin. Just because Jamie won more than he expected doesnt mean that 50% isnt still half.

[WaLdOrFiAn 0]

I like how everyone on here just hates on Jamie Gold because he won the main event. How do you'll know that they had a deal. Just because some guy said they made a verbal deal to split the winnings doesnt make it true. I could pull the same bullshit if i knew jamie gold. Leyser does not have a case. There is no evidence of any deal, and in this country thats all that matters. If the judge gives this guy a penny he should be fired. You cant award someone 6 million dollars because they say there was a deal. You need PROOF!!!!!!! Would you think it was fair if a murderer got out of jail because he SAID he didnt do it? Its the same situation.

[Mercury69 3]

I don't hate him because he won the ME. I hate him because he's a donk, got super lucky and angle-shot his way to a win. Oh, and he's a ******. In fact, anyone who yaps while it's another guy's turn to bet is a ****** and an idiot, IMO. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the bettor talking about hands and such, looking for reactions, etc, but it just is completely selfish to yap and yap while the bettor is thinking (or trying...). I swear, ME or anywhere, I'd be like "Any chance you could shut the hell up while it's my turn to bet, ******?"Srsly.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Come on,people.Leyser doesn't have a case. He was supposed to get CELEBS, not fourth rate, recycled nobodies like Lillard and a comedian from a crappy show like Punk'd.

Knowing no more than what's in this thread to this point, I'm inclined to agree with this and the "GET IT WRITING" post. People, get your ridiculous agreements in writing. You'll be surprised how many people will back out of anything and everything when the ink is presented.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I like how everyone on here just hates on Jamie Gold because he won the main event. How do you'll know that they had a deal. Just because some guy said they made a verbal deal to split the winnings doesnt make it true. I could pull the same bullshit if i knew jamie gold. Leyser does not have a case. There is no evidence of any deal, and in this country thats all that matters. If the judge gives this guy a penny he should be fired. You cant award someone 6 million dollars because they say there was a deal. You need PROOF!!!!!!! Would you think it was fair if a murderer got out of jail because he SAID he didnt do it? Its the same situation.

Your murderer analogy is way, way off.Actually, there are multiple voicemails that Jamie left Leyser. There are talks of splitting 50%, and the day of the final table, in which Jamie said that he would make sure Leyser was taken care of, but that he needed to concentrate.Again, please don't chime in unless you have at least some idea of what is going on. Just sayin'.

[Orcasgt22 0]

Steve Dannamen had his 2005 WSOP buy paid in half by a friend. He gave half his winning to that guy after.Gold = Lose

[Jrobb25 0]

Here is a link to Mark Seifs new blog....He out of Legal retirement for this case...Good read.http://bluffmagazine.com/blog/blogdetail.a...id=4&aid=80

[WaLdOrFiAn 0]

Your murderer analogy is way, way off.Actually, there are multiple voicemails that Jamie left Leyser. There are talks of splitting 50%, and the day of the final table, in which Jamie said that he would make sure Leyser was taken care of, but that he needed to concentrate.Again, please don't chime in unless you have at least some idea of what is going on. Just sayin'.

Hearing a few voicemails that are jamie gold or not is not enough evidence in this country. The jury has to believe beyond a resonable doubt that jamie gold and leyser made that agreement, and without a contract or witnesses the court can not rule in favor of leyser.I think jamie gold is a ***** for doing this too but there is no way leyser will win and if he does then our courts are even a bigger joke than we all thought they were.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Hearing a few voicemails that are jamie gold or not is not enough evidence in this country. The jury has to believe beyond a resonable doubt that jamie gold and leyser made that agreement, and without a contract or witnesses the court can not rule in favor of leyser.I think jamie gold is a ***** for doing this too but there is no way leyser will win and if he does then our courts are even a bigger joke than we all thought they were.

Reasonable Doubt is for criminal cases. The standard is far lower in civil cases, I think.

[xmykro 0]

Your murderer analogy is way, way off.Actually, there are multiple voicemails that Jamie left Leyser. There are talks of splitting 50%, and the day of the final table, in which Jamie said that he would make sure Leyser was taken care of, but that he needed to concentrate.Again, please don't chime in unless you have at least some idea of what is going on. Just sayin'.

I'm sorry but voicemails are not enough to give the guy $6 Million. There are so many loop-holes and defenses that Jamie Gold's lawyers can use, it's incredible. I'll give you a couple defenses, the possibilities are endless:"It wasn't me!""I was under the influence!""It was a joke!""We didn't agree to that percentage!"etc.etc.I'll say it again. Unless Leyser has a WRITTEN contract, he ain't getting jack.