Leon Tsoukerniks lawsuit against Matt Kirk and Aria Casino has been rejected

Las Vegas Review-Journal has informed that court has rejected the lawsuit from King’s Casino in Rozvadov owner, Leon Tsoukernik. The lawsuit was against Matt Kirk and Aria casino in Las Vegas.

As you may recall the whole thing started when Matt Kirk accused Leon Tsoukernik of not returning money (in the sum of around $2mln) after a heads-up game. This is also when Tsoukernik replied that Kirk and workers in Aria that they served him alcohol to make him drunk and allowed him to take a loan from the casino, even when he was not even able anymore to see the cards.

Kirk vs Tsoukernik case was discussed by Rob Yong, the owner of Dusk Till Dawn. Kirk was supposedly admitting to him that all he cared about was ruining Tsoukernik's reputation in the poker community.

The court in Las Vegas rejected lawsuit from Tsoukernik against Kirk & Aria. According to the information gathered by Las Vegas Review-Journal, Tsoukernik will have to cover the legal expenses. His lawyers will be able to have the case re-opened if new statements or evidence emerge.

According to Tsoukernik Kirk was colluding with Aria workers, and he didn't disclose the information on where the money he played with came from.

Why should it matter where the money independent player uses come from? – argued judge Linda Bell. – This is not something that a player would be expected to reveal. How can that be any breaching of casino rules?

However, Tsoukernik's lawyer, Lesley Miller says it does matter, because in this case the sponsors staking Matt Kirk could play a pivotal role in the whole thing. She also pointed out that Kirk was working with the casino to put her client in a hopeless situation.

Richard Schonfeld, who was defending Kirk replied that no law obliges players to reveal where they have money from. He also said that Tsoukernik ordered his drinks by himself, and Kirk had nothing to do with the former getting drunk.

Interestingly Tsoukernik was also accused by the Aria casino, but judge rejected this one as well. It is to be now assesed by Gaming Control Board.

Judge Bell rejected eight oou of ten claims on Leon's list but also said that poker player can still try to get his money back, together with retaliatory damages.

faggotry at its finest

This article is either really confusing or I m dumb af. Reread it 3 times, so basically Kirk beat him HU, drunk guy took a loan from casino and doesnt want to pay it and countered it by sueing the guy that played him?

In Leon's defense afaik Kirk offered him a buy-out and both parties agreed and I think then Kirk backed out.

On March 14 2018 21:55 Spitfiree wrote: This article is either really confusing or I m dumb af. Reread it 3 times, so basically Kirk beat him HU, drunk guy took a loan from casino and doesnt want to pay it and countered it by sueing the guy that played him?

As far as I know Kirk just loaned him because he didnt have the money on hand and couldnt wire it in or something. Then Leon lost because he's a fish, and blamed Kirk and whoever else for getting him drunk intentionally to make him lose and therefore he doesnt have to pay Kirk back.

On March 15 2018 04:40 Trav94 wrote: Show nested quote + On March 14 2018 21:55 Spitfiree wrote: This article is either really confusing or I m dumb af. Reread it 3 times, so basically Kirk beat him HU, drunk guy took a loan from casino and doesnt want to pay it and countered it by sueing the guy that played him? As far as I know Kirk just loaned him because he didnt have the money on hand and couldnt wire it in or something. Then Leon lost because he's a fish, and blamed Kirk and whoever else for getting him drunk intentionally to make him lose and therefore he doesnt have to pay Kirk back.

yes that happened but at one point Kirk feared not getting paid, offered a buy out for like half of the money, and after both agreeing in writing he backed out, I mean that is the only thing going for Leon because obviously he is a piece of shit.