Lee Childs sued by poker backer, Childs wins

In a first-of-its-kind lawsuit between staker and stakee, Lee Childs (the stakee) emerged victorious.

This situation was a bit strange.

Childs had a backing agreement with staker Lynne Mitchnick. Mitchnick had some fairly ridiculous demands in the signed agreement, including forcing Childs to provide his tournament schedule six months in advance (lol), as well as a requirement to "play to the best of his ability" (again lol).

Mitchnick ended their agreement with Childs $40k in the hole. This was considered "makeup", meaning that Childs would only have to pay the $40k if he won subsequent tournaments while being backed by Mitchnick. However, as she had terminated the stake, he could obviously no longer do that Mitchnick then sued Childs for the $40k, claiming she ended the stake because he had breached the contract.

However, it was found that the breach in contract was only "failure to timely execute administrative tasks" (such as providing the tournament schedule to her), and none of it was "material in nature". Basically, Childs only breached the contract involving unimportant bullshit, and while that was enough for her to end the stake, she couldn't also force him to pay the makeup.

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...er-and-stakee/

I agree with this decision.


Childs finished 7th in the 2007 WSOP Main Event, but has struggled to break through since then. He has not had a cash above $30k in those 7 years since.

Pretty funny read on 2+2, as the backer showed up in the thread.

She showed up on June 4 at 4:24am, posting this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoomer2398

As far as I can tell, the backer was not really suing for makeup. There was a signed contract that included a provision that Childs owed the backer the makeup if she dropped him due to contract violations on his part. And it seems he violated the contract a lot throughout the several years that she backed him.

---

As you can tell above, she wrote it in the third person, attempting to mislead people into thinking she wasn't the backer.

Then, inexplicably, she changed her mind about 45 minutes later (5:10am), and posted the following diatribe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoomer2398

Childs' camp started to make the case public in June 2013 on a 2+2 podcast. Until the case was resolved two weeks ago, I never made a public comment, including to media that contacted me as a result of the Childs camp going public ... As the backer, I can assure you that Childs was far deeper into makeup on numerous occasions before the lawsuit was instituted. This case has nothing to do with trying to recover makeup; obviously, any backer knows that staking is high-risk and, in my testimony, I likened it to a venture capital investment where there is a high risk of loss. The lawsuit hinged on a clause in our contract that states Childs is responsible for outstanding makeup if the contract is terminated due to him violating it. Although not called "liquidated damages" in the contract, that is essentially the intent of the clause. I tried for several years to get him to comply (except for the provision of schedules six months in advance, which Childs and I agreed was unrealistic and thus revised to three months early on). Ultimately, his violations made it too uncomfortable for me to continue backing him, and so IMO liquidated damages applied ... Without reading actual transcripts from depositions and the trial, it is impossible for anyone to really understand the case. And the jury did rule that Childs violated the contract in six different ways. The jury also offered their opinion that Childs owes me $5000 for a personal loan, but they did not have the authority to award it to me (which is true because it was not a separate issue in the lawsuit). Zeitlin's write-up has some key points in it but, as he himself states, much of it is just his opinion. The links he provides are not to a comprehensive set of documents. IMO, if the goal were to provide a complete picture of the case, then links would have been provided to sworn depositions and trial testimony. And there are some incorrect statements in Zeitlin's write-up, such as (to pick an innocuous one) that I was not present on the last day of court. And other statements are clearly open to interpretation. For instance, and again selecting an innocuous one, the observation that a juror rolled his eyes and another had an expression of contempt while I was testifying may have been directed toward me, or it may have been directed toward the senior Zeitlin who kept asking me the same questions over and over. I believe the jury to have been attentive and have tried to do a good job ... I was (and still am) far from a heavy-handed backer. We even had a joint bank account that required only one of our signatures to withdraw money! Nor has there ever been even a minor issue between myself and anyone else I have backed ... Nothing in this case was sealed, and I welcome anyone who wants to take the time to read transcripts and then be able to come to a well-informed opinion ... From my perspective, this is simply a business deal gone bad. My hope is that the outcome of this case does not discourage backers who rely on contracts from backing in the future.

---

There were no posts in between. She just went from pretending to be a third party to being herself, for no apparent reason.

She even admitted later that she regretted the third-person post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoomer2398

As for the third person post, I agree it looks ridiculous! I asked for it to be removed immediately after I realized it was there, which was past the time I could remove it myself. So I'm hoping the admin folks get to it soon. I never posted on this forum before, and was just familiarizing myself with how to post on it.

---

She apparently also lied in court about whether or not online results were included in the $40k makeup figure.

Here is the 2+2 thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...takee-1449067/

On page of of that thread, Mitchnick shows up.

Childs was represented by a guy named David Zetlin, an attorney not licensed to practice in New Jersey, where the case took place. Zetlin knew Childs from poker in the past, and wanted to help him out. It is not clear if Zetlin charged Childs for representation. Zetlin also brought his father and another attorney on (one licensed to practice in NJ) to help out.

Here is Zetlin's writeup (long) of the case: http://davidzeitlin.com/mitchnick-v-...poker-justice/


Apparently Mitchnick's issues were:

1) Childs wouldn't give her his schedule months in advance, but instead did so weeks in advance

2) Childs did not give her the tax forms she needed for filing by the required date of January 31

3) Childs was observed drinking and playing blackjack at the Rio at 2:00am on the night prior to a WSOP event (which presumably began at 12pm).

4) Childs was sometimes slow in transferring winnings to Mitchnick. (However, he did transfer all of them prior to being dropped from the stake, so he never misappropriated any funds, nor was that alleged.)


However, it was determined by the court that none of this ended up costing Mitchnick any kind of real money, nor did his drinking/blackjack at 2am necessarily impair his ability to play poker well many hours later.

Zetlin made these claims regarding what occurred in court:

Quote:

---

My father cross-examined the Plaintiff, and frankly, he buried her. She could not convey how Lee’s alleged breaches had deprived her of anything significant. She was a difficult witness who came across as evasive, unlikeable and self-important. In my view, she destroyed her own credibility.

---

Quote:

---

When my father asked the Plaintiff whether Lee’s final makeup number included online results, the Plaintiff went into denial mode. She testified that Lee’s live and online makeup amounts were separate figures, and that she was suing for $40,000 in live makeup only. This directly contradicted several documents, her own deposition testimony, and a written decision by Judge Schultz, who had found that the funds were commingled.

---

Lee Childs just folded KK because he thought you might have jacks. He folded face up.

She did an interview with Cardplayer about this:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...of-the-lawsuit

Good ol' Cardplayer getting to the story 2 1/2 months late.

Anyway, it's an interesting read, though please don't click on any links on the page, as Cardplayer is scum who accepted ads for Lock long after they knew it was a scam, so they don't deserve any revenue.

Lynne sent this to me herself via e-mail.

I just asked her come on PFA Radio next week. We'll see if she wants to.

Lynne has accepted the invitation to come on the show.

This will likely air either August 26th or more likely September 3.

I will post more info when I know more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Lynne has accepted the invitation to come on the show.

This will likely air either August 26th or more likely September 3.

I will post more info when I know more.

---

"Good ol' Cardplayer getting to the story 2 1/2 months late."

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Lynne has accepted the invitation to come on the show.

This will likely air either August 26th or more likely September 3.

I will post more info when I know more.

---

Has she seen this thread? lol.