Just last week his ailing father,
Then yesterday in Vegas, the U.S. District Court judge in the
“His actions, in the court’s view, do not give the plaintiff much assurance that the money would, in fact, be available in the event of a judgment in his favor. The likelihood of success weighs on the side of the plaintiff.”
Based on Hunt’s statement it seems Gold and his team of shysters have some work to do in convincing a jury–if it even goes that far, which it will, unless it settles, which they should–that his promise to Leyser to a share of his winnings was an unbargained for promise of a gift that isn’t enforceable as a matter of law.
Modestly gloating after the hearing, Crispin Leyser’s shyster, David Chesnoff, remarked to the Associated Press, “We’re pleased with this result because it prevents the money from being squandered by someone who admits he didn’t keep his promise.”
“Disappointed, yes, but not surprised,” said Gold’s shyster, Patrick Byrne. “We recognize our client made the promise. But we believe that when all of the evidence of the case is before a jury that they will see there was no consideration for the agreement.”
Of note, we never provided an analysis, if that’s what you call what we do, of Leyser’s response last friday, which included damning testimony from Jamie Gold’s depositon and a few bombshells, including that Leyser only filed suit when Gold tried to get all of the $12 million wired from the Rio to a bank in California. In his depostion, Gold admitted that he had tried to obtain the entire $12 million without telling Leyser. For a thorough analysis of Leyser’s arguments, which won the day yesterday for him, be sure to check out The Shark Tank, which also includes links to the documents filed in court and Gold’s deposition transcript.