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
Poor Jamie, that's a good age though.
