stan394 0 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 on wickedchopspoker. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Patrick Byrne, the new attorney for the embattled Jamie Gold, said, "We don’t believe Mr. Leyser is entitled to any money as a matter of law."The operative words here, of course, are "as a matter of law."Because if it was "as a matter of Jamie's word," or "as a matter of principle," or "as a matter of not ****ing with poker's longstanding tradition of handshake deals," then Crispin Leyser would likely already have his half, and we'd be able to watch the Main Event on ESPN with at least some sense of enjoyment and a modicum of respect for Jamie Gold's confident table talk and spectacular big stack play (and yes, his fortunate flops).Instead, we watch the ESPN broadcast hoping somehow, someway it was all just a bad dream, that the past has miraculously changed and someone else like Allen Cunningham or Paul Wasicka (and definitely not Richard Lee) goes on to become the face of poker for the coming year. Someone who would rather talk poker than pitch crap reality TV shows. Someone who would rather stand behind his word than stand behind his lawyers. And someone who didn't let money get the best of him before it was even his to claim.Regardless of our opinion of Gold's actions and the ugly lawsuit that has ensued, this isn't a one-sided, black-and-white argument. Jamie Gold, himself, isn't totally to blame...Jamieandleysers_3Because if there's one thing we're fairly certain of, it's that Jamie is surrounded by a lot of people outside the poker world who make a living giving him bad advice. People who couldn't care less about the game and its traditions. People who put a price tag on Jamie's word because they see a way out of it as a matter of law. People who think the chipleader four days before the final table deserves special treatment and a team of bodyguards. People who would fail to see the absurdity of watching Jamie Gold on Day 7 hastily walk by Greg Raymer and Joe Hachem in the hallway of the Rio as the past two champs casually conversed and signed autographs while Gold's bodyguards push unsuspecting people out of the way--people who absolutely had no ****ing clue who Gold was. And most recently, people who send out press releases on the business news wire boasting that Jamie Gold is the chipleader going into "the second-to-last day" of a three-day half-*** event with 82 players (Jamie busted the day the press release was sent out).Indeed, the actions from Gold's camp over the past two months suggests a shift towards an even greater bastardization and corporatization of poker. Whereas the past few years the focus has been on Average Joes rising up to fulfill every other Average Joe's fantasy of winning the WSOP, we now have a Malibu Joe who walks around with bodyguards and an entourage and where corporations are set up to manage payouts of pre-arranged deals, lawsuits are filed over winnings in Federal Court and gold bracelets are pawned for hack reality shows sponsored by a Swedish skin-filler cream for women.And while we're being hard on Gold, we're not letting Leyser off the hook either. If it's true that Gold and Leyser could have worked out a deal without going to court, then it should have happened. Poker deals belong in court about as much as they belong in writing, and as Jeff Haney, the respected poker journalist for the Las Vegas Sun, noted earlier last week, the Leyser v. Gold case may "signal the end of a more innocent age in big-time gambling . . . [w]hen a professional gambler would sooner take a corporate day job ... than end up in a courtroom fighting about poker tournament winnings."Interestingly enough, had Leyser given Gold time enough to set up his corporation to handle his WSOP winnings and pay Leyser his share, this whole mess might have been averted. In his phone message regarding the splitting of earnings, Gold seemed earnest about hooking Leyser up with his half, albeit at a later date and through a shell corporation. Sure, Steve Dannenmann didn't feel the need to do this last year, but that's just one of the reasons why Dannenmann is beloved as an ambassador to the game and Gold is currently the opposite of beloved as an ambassador to the game. Point is, it seems like Leyser hit the panic button, and because he freaked, we'll likely never know whether Gold was going to give him his share after he worked out some tax scheme--or screw him entirely. Now that the case is before the court, Gold's lawyer has no choice but to argue that Leyser's entitled to jack squat, at least as a matter of lawWhich is a shame. On his march to win the 2006 WSOP ME, one of Jamie Gold's biggest assets was the power of his words at the poker table. His words had value. His words persuaded people to do things he wanted them to for the benefit of his game.Unfortunately, away from the poker table, Jamie Gold's words have done nothing but harm to the game, because we know now there's a price to them. And poker is left in a worse place than it was just two months ago because of it. Link to post Share on other sites
DB10-2 0 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 as a lawyer myself, i'd like to know on what basis gold's lawyer claims leyser isn't entitled to anything "as a matter of law." i think leyser's got a pretty decent claim.i also agree there was no need for this to ever go to the courts. as they say, at the end of the day a gambler is only worth his word. Link to post Share on other sites
theresa113 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Great article... but the story saddens me. Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Star Wars: The Golden ages fallIt is a dark day in poker with lawsuits popping up all over the galaxy. Coupled with this, the rise of a new sith lord named Jamie Gold it seems that poker is doomed for destruction. The only hope for the sake of the poker world is one Jedi Knight, one man above all who will rise up and fight the evil Sith Lord and defy all odds.......Steve Dannenmen! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 The real story here is the bodyguards.They are not your normal body guards, the big guys that beat up fans.No these are Verbal Bodyguards.No matter how hard you try to tell Jamie what a donkey he is and how lucky he was, they will shout you down while screaming; " You played good too Jamie, You played good too!"They were formerly employed by Anna Nicole, so for a while they accidently yelled; " You're not a slut"Man that was awkward Link to post Share on other sites
Pokergolf 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I would think Gold's ploy in not paying was pretty obvious: he tried to get Leyser to settle for less, there was probably some back and forth that went on, Leyser probably told Gold to get bent, Gold probably resigned himself to litigation and boom, the suit was filed.Interesting article about it in the most recent issue of Card Player (Gold is on the cover). They have a transcript of the message that Gold allegedly left on Leyser's answering machine. If the message is in fact the voice of Gold, then I would say that Gold is screwed and the six million sitting in escrow at the Rio will eventually find its way to its rightful owner. Link to post Share on other sites
_Great_Dane_ 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 If the message is in fact the voice of Gold, then I would say that Gold is screwed and the six million sitting in escrow at the Rio will eventually find its way to its rightful owner .Jerry Ditzel !!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
FourFlusher 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 as a lawyer myself, i'd like to know on what basis gold's lawyer claims leyser isn't entitled to anything "as a matter of law." i think leyser's got a pretty decent claim.I have never heard a lawyer for the defendant say: Yeah, the suit has merrit, the plaintiff is clearly in the right here. What was my client thinking? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 as a lawyer myself, i'd like to know on what basis gold's lawyer claims leyser isn't entitled to anything "as a matter of law." i think leyser's got a pretty decent claim.i also agree there was no need for this to ever go to the courts. as they say, at the end of the day a gambler is only worth his word.a verbal contract is worth the paper it is printed on. Link to post Share on other sites
finztotheleft 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 "but that's just one of the reasons why Dannenmann is beloved as an ambassador to the game and Gold is currently the opposite of beloved as an ambassador to the game"I normally don't say this, but WTF !?!?!? Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I find this sad and interesting at the same time. I don't know what went on between Gold and that other guy, but it seems that Gold is being a prick, and a greedy person. Fork over the half that you owe and drop the case before you lose all your money in the court room. Link to post Share on other sites
stealfromblind 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 meh Link to post Share on other sites
GeneralGeeWhiz 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 mehOverused and very lame. Link to post Share on other sites
rogerwilco 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 as a lawyer myself, i'd like to know on what basis gold's lawyer claims leyser isn't entitled to anything "as a matter of law." i think leyser's got a pretty decent claim.If you were Jamie Golds lawyer, what would you say to the press? Link to post Share on other sites
Kestral123 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 as a lawyer myself, i'd like to know on what basis gold's lawyer claims leyser isn't entitled to anything "as a matter of law." i think leyser's got a pretty decent claim. I'm also a lawyer and curious. My initial reaction is statute of frauds, though. Link to post Share on other sites
Teavis 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I'm also a lawyer and curious. My initial reaction is statute of frauds, though.Hold on...I went to paralegal school for a semester...um...basically a contract has to be in writing if it involves...MarriageSomething that will happen over the span of a year, or year from the dateLandExecutor decisionsSomething that begins with a GSurety agreements Is this the one? Link to post Share on other sites
crocd99 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 i dont think statute of fruads applies here.ii) Contracts within the Statute(1) Promise in Consideration of Marriage (2) Promise by Executor to Pay Obligation from Executor’s Funds(3) Guarantees (Answering for Debts of Others)(4) Service Contract Performed More than One Year after Contract Date(5) Transfers of Interest in Real Estate More than a Year(6) UCC Sale of Goods for $500 or MoreLeyser does have a strong case too if i remember correctly (and my explanation will be very simple) the formation of a contract involves offer, acceptance, and consideration. also remember we dont know all the facts these are based on what we have heardoffer: General Rule: Manifestation by words or conduct showing intent to contractso here gold made and offer by saying hey leyser i really need some celebs to play the main event. if you get these celebs for me i will give you 50% of my winnings. that is gold's offer to leyser.acceptance: Acceptance only by person who knows about the offer and is the person to whom it was made. in addition to that performance is also typically considered acceptanceso here leyser is the only one the offer was made too so he is the only one who can accept. he accepted by getting two of the celebs to play the wsop while wearing bodog stuff. i cant remember who the celebs are but i am pretty sure he got two of them. so leyser performed his part of the bargain and therefore accepted the offer.consideration: Consideration Defined: Bargained-for legal detriment. “Bargained-for” means asked for by the promisor in exchange for promisor’s promise. “Legal detriment” means any detrimenthere we have consideration. gold asked for leyser to get celebs and gold then promised to give leyser 50% of his winnings. there is legal detriment to both parties. Gold has to give up 50% of his winnings and Leyser must actually go out and get some celebs to wear bodog stuff.leyser has performed his part of the contract and gold has not therefore gold has breached the contractthat in a nut shell is a very very simple analysis of there being a legit contract between the two based on the facts we know. however there are probably numerous facts we dont know of and there are certainly a ton of more issues that we dont even know about. Link to post Share on other sites
Kestral123 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I'm not sure it applies here either; I'm just saying that I'm betting that's one of the theories that Gold's lawyer is going to try. Link to post Share on other sites
CBass1724 1 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 The tournament should be re-played as a result of a protest. Link to post Share on other sites
Gunnarr 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Jamie Gold is going to lose more than 6 million because of this. If you count lawyer fees, chances he will actually lose the case, and loss of endorsement revenue(his reputation is pathetic no sponser with any brain will touch him). I could see him losing 20 million or more longterm.As the article rightly pointed out , he had better get rid of whomever is advising him PRONTO.Gunn Link to post Share on other sites
AK33 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Is there a third party involved that is acting as a witness to this verbal contract or is it just he said he said? Link to post Share on other sites
crocd99 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 i dont think statute of fruads applies here.ii) Contracts within the Statute(1) Promise in Consideration of Marriage (2) Promise by Executor to Pay Obligation from Executor’s Funds(3) Guarantees (Answering for Debts of Others)(4) Service Contract Performed More than One Year after Contract Date(5) Transfers of Interest in Real Estate More than a Year(6) UCC Sale of Goods for $500 or MoreLeyser does have a strong case too if i remember correctly (and my explanation will be very simple) the formation of a contract involves offer, acceptance, and consideration. also remember we dont know all the facts these are based on what we have heardoffer: General Rule: Manifestation by words or conduct showing intent to contractso here gold made and offer by saying hey leyser i really need some celebs to play the main event. if you get these celebs for me i will give you 50% of my winnings. that is gold's offer to leyser.acceptance: Acceptance only by person who knows about the offer and is the person to whom it was made. in addition to that performance is also typically considered acceptanceso here leyser is the only one the offer was made too so he is the only one who can accept. he accepted by getting two of the celebs to play the wsop while wearing bodog stuff. i cant remember who the celebs are but i am pretty sure he got two of them. so leyser performed his part of the bargain and therefore accepted the offer.consideration: Consideration Defined: Bargained-for legal detriment. “Bargained-for” means asked for by the promisor in exchange for promisor’s promise. “Legal detriment” means any detrimenthere we have consideration. gold asked for leyser to get celebs and gold then promised to give leyser 50% of his winnings. there is legal detriment to both parties. Gold has to give up 50% of his winnings and Leyser must actually go out and get some celebs to wear bodog stuff.leyser has performed his part of the contract and gold has not therefore gold has breached the contractthat in a nut shell is a very very simple analysis of there being a legit contract between the two based on the facts we know. however there are probably numerous facts we dont know of and there are certainly a ton of more issues that we dont even know about. Link to post Share on other sites
Hoosierdaddy 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Jamie did have Top Top Link to post Share on other sites
flyingdonkey 0 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Anybody know how Gold did at the TCI? Last I heard he was the chip leader through day 1... Link to post Share on other sites
edge52 0 Posted September 23, 2006 Share Posted September 23, 2006 a verbal contract is worth the paper it is printed on.Not true. Legally a verbal contract is every bit as enforceable as a written contract, there's just the little issue of convincing the judge that the contract actually exists, ie. you had a conversation that led to clearly agreed upon terms. Pretty easy when the conversation is tape recorded. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now