Bad news for Jamie Gold

#1 22-12-2006, 5:01 PM

http://wickedchopspoker.blogs.com/my...golds_fat.html

#2 22-12-2006, 7:11 PM

Gutted

Poor Jamie, that's a good age though.

#3 22-12-2006, 7:32 PM

Not to take away from his tragedy or anything, but I'm too lazy to go looking for an article at the moment...what ever happened to the other $6M that was being held pending that lawsuit? Anone know?

#4 22-12-2006, 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Daniels

Not to take away from his tragedy or anything, but I'm too lazy to go looking for an article at the moment...what ever happened to the other $6M that was being held pending that lawsuit? Anone know?

Here's the latest about Gold's winnings:

http://www.pokergazette.com/simpnews...news/news4.php

#5 22-12-2006, 7:46 PM

Thanks T.

Thread now officially unhijacked...now, back to the show....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mischman

http://wickedchopspoker.blogs.com/my...golds_fat.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSRedImp

Gutted

Poor Jamie, that's a good age though.

#6 22-12-2006, 8:19 PM

Can you say PWNED?
Quoted From MarK Seif on Bluff Magazine

Quote:

My first Blog - Leyser v. GoldWhen Eric Morris first asked me to write a blog for Bluff a week or two ago I said I needed to think about it because, although I enjoy writing, I find it painful. I kind of labor over anything I write trying to make sure it says what I mean in a clear concise way, and for me, that doesn't come easy. After discussing the idea with my wife Jennifer though, she assured me that this would be much easier than other writings because its...well...casual she said. I decided to give it a shot.

So here goes my first ever blog entry and its about my good friend Jamie Gold. I am being totally facetious. I can't stand JG. In an nutshell, he totally screwed over my real buddy Crispin Leyser - to the tune of $6 million! Perhaps equally as important, he gives poker and poker players a bad name. This is why I came out of legal retirement. For this one case.

JG is not really a poker player, but most of the public doesn't know that. So, to the extent that people do and will in the future consider him a poker player and will soon discover (if they haven't already) that he is a lying, conniving and genuinely dishonest person, unavoidably, the game and those that play it for a living will be tarnished as a result, at least somewhat.

After so much positive momentum for poker for a few years now, it saddens and angers me to think that one guy can benefit so hugely from the years of hard work of great poker ambassadors such as Doyle Brunson, Mike Sexton, Daniel N., Chris Moneymaker, Greg Raymer and Joe Hachem, but yet, also bring such dishonor to the game.

I'm sure most of you know by now the general story line, but I guarantee you don't know all of the facts. And unfortunately, I can't, at this time, go into all of the facts due to the pending litigation in Federal court. But I can and will discuss some things about the case here in my blog.

For now though, I want to end with a summary of what happened today in court before Judge Roger Hunt. Defendant JG, although not present in court, through his counsel attempted to dissolve the preliminary injunction which froze $6 million at the Rio cage and was issued in September of this year. In refusing to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Judge Hunt stated and it became obvious that he spent a great deal of time carefully reading Gold's affidavit, deposition testimony, pleadings, and transcripts of Gold's own radio interview and voice mail message. He found Gold's "version" of the facts contradictory and inconsistent. In contrast, the Judge stated that Plaintiff Crispin Leyser's position was consistent from the very beginning.

Judge Hunt also found and stated on the record that Crispin will likely prevail on the merits at trial. That's strong - very strong when you consider that there has been no demand for a jury trial and that THIS Judge will decide the case at trial. It's certainly not conclusive - but it gives you an idea what the Judge is thinking and which way he is leaning (despite the headline which appeared in some articles today stating the opposite - it was just a typo).

Finally, after having read countless articles and forum posts suggesting and sometimes even guaranteeing that Leyser would lose and Gold will prevail in this suit for a multitude of absurd reasons, I can take comfort in the fact that the truth shall prevail in all likelihood in this case, and that my friend Crispin will be vindicated.

We have an amazing legal system in America that properly serves as an example to the rest of the world that in the vast majority of the cases both civil and criminal here, justice will prevail. We should all be proud and feel a strong sense of security in being protected by it. I do.

Maybe blogging isn't so painful. We'll see. Happy Holidays!

-- Mark Seif

#7 23-12-2006, 1:01 PM

Half is a bit big though...

Is a verbal promise like that legally binding?

#8 23-12-2006, 2:07 PM

I find it stupid how he has to give away $6,000,000 because somebody gave him $5000 or was it $10000? Still, he should just have to give him his $5/10k back and keep the rest becuase he won.

#9 23-12-2006, 2:34 PM

A deal is a deal - you don't back out just because you donked your way into more money than you ever imagined.

#10 23-12-2006, 3:27 PM

I'm sorry, but the mans dad has died and all you guys are worried about is his lawsuit.
personally, my prayers go out to him and his family at this time of year.

#11 23-12-2006, 6:27 PM

I feel sorry for his dad and family, but Jamie Gold is a self involved 2 faced cheat. I never heard of him before this years WSOP, not unusual in recent years, but the first minute I layed eyes on him I couldn't stand the sight of him. Yes, a verbal agreement is legally binding, but hard to prove. While the actual terms of the agreement will be difficult to establish, the fact that there was some agreement seems clear. I'd be surprised if this case doesn't get settled in Golds favor, but no way he walks away with the whole pot. His real loss will be in endorsements and paid appearences.

#12 23-12-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSRedImp

I find it stupid how he has to give away $6,000,000 because somebody gave him $5000 or was it $10000? Still, he should just have to give him his $5/10k back and keep the rest becuase he won.

. Because I'm sure the guy put up $5000 with the intention of just getting his $5000 back if Gold won. He either breaks even or loses. That makes no sense.

Similar Threads for: Poker > Bad news for Jamie Gold
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WSOP UPDATES	DESSERTLADY	General Poker	425	17-08-2006 7:02 PM


PokerStars is amongst the best places to play poker online that accepts US players. Use PokerStars marketing code CARDSCHAT for a $75 bonus.	Full Tilt Poker accepts US players. Use Full Tilt Poker referral code CARDSCHAT for a $600 bonus and to play online poker with the pro's.