Jamie Gold strikes back

[2Tone]

His side of the story.

He's got some good lawyers for sure, but that voice mail is still pretty compelling evidence the other way.

[Talking Poker]

Interesting.

I'd like to know RD's take on this. Here's a link to the motion:

[Reel Deal]

I'm very interested in this and will give you my take when I get the chance to read this stuff. Just checking in quick after my home game tonight (some nice cash for RD and some interesting hands). Hope to read this stuff tomorrow.

[Talking Poker]

I have to tell you.... I just read the entire injuction, and it's compelling, to say the least. My immediate reaction:

1. In some sick way, it makes me wat to become a lawyer.
2. Remind me not to get sued any time soon. Yikes.

[eejit101]

I dont know Jamie Gold.
Ive never seen him play.
I dont know this crispin bloke.
Ive heard jamie gold is a dumbass.

so, my take on this, please correct me if im wrong.


1. Gold gets given a $10k buyin from bodog, for being a good player.
2. Gold accepts.
3. Gold meets crispin.
4. Crispin is broke.
5. Crispin harasses gold.
6. Crispins gets some not famous people who were famous for 5 mins to play for Bodog.
7. Bodog wont give crispin his $10k entry.
8. Gold feels sorry and says ill share some profits.
9. Gold gets AA every hand and wins.
10. Crispin thinks hes won $6million.





This case to me is defined by 2 key points if its under UK contract/paper law.

1. Did gold sign anything to say he would give Crispin half.
2. Were their witnesses that hears him say and agree to "gold giving crispin half".


Splitting profits and donating some profits is differnt. I won $65k. If before this i said to TP ill donate some to a TP freeroll if i win id donate say $500. TP then thinks were having a $37.5k freeroll. No question, in a court of law, i win hands down.

I dont get what kind of case this crispin has.

[juiCe[3x]]

There's a like answering machine that had Gold saying he would get the money. Thats about all there is. I don't know where the link is where it shows that ... I'll try to find it.

EDIT: Go Here :

Jamie Gold says:

"So please just be with me. I can't imagine you're going to have a problem with it. I just don't want any stress about any money or any of that [expletive] going on today, or even after the end of the day.

"But please just trust me. You've trusted me the whole way, you can trust me a little bit more. I promise you there's no way anybody will go anywhere with your money. It's your money."

[sjay2k]

this is merely a promise of a gift, which is unenforceable. a contract requires consideration. alternatively Crispin needed to have acted to his detriment in reliance upon the promise, such that it would be unconscionable for gold to deny that a contract exists (estoppel).

crispin will get nothing.

[sjay2k]

lol, nothing like amateur legal analysis

[eejit101]

amatuer?? UK law studied for 1 year

[Talking Poker]

LOL.

[sjay2k]

res ipsa loquitur