A Peculiar Offer By Dempsey: Winner Take All vs. Wills

[Dempsey-Louis]

The bounced check NEVER became a court issue. Dempsey attempted to make it a court issue because it was his excuse to try to get out of the contract. The court saw right through it, and said it had NOTHING to do with him breaching the contract. I've already showed you the part of the case that said that.



Again, the bounced check was September 1925. Dempsey signed the new contract in March 1926. He then also later claimed that he was to receive $125,000 at the signing, but tell me, who signs a contract and accepts $10 as consideration on the very day that they are stiffed out of $125,000? It's clear that Dempsey and his legal team were full of shlt. Dempsey was not freed of obligation, as I've shown repeatedly. The injunction was granted because he was found to have breached the contract, and even in appeal, the court said that judgement should be found for the Chicago Coliseum Club, but for nominal damages.



Come on, dude. He would have been allowed to keep the $300,000 that they guaranteed by August 5th, 1926, no matter what, as stipulated by the contract that he signed. If the fight comes off, he makes more than he would have made with Tunney. If the fight doesn't, he has the $300,000 plus the Tunney money.



Dude, with all due respect, you are completely pulling this info. from thin air.

1. The court did not issue the injunction because "nothing had been found." The court issued the injunction because it found that Dempsey breached the contract.

2. How are you going to assume that the judge was bought off????? That's a hell of a claim without any proof. Besides, this was NOT a Chicago judge that issued the injunction. The proceedings for the injunction took place in INDIANA because that's where they tracked down Dempsey and served him with the papers for the lawsuit. So no, it was NOT a Chicago judge!

3. It is NOT true that it went "nowhere." The injunction was granted and was NEVER lifted until it expired, which took place after the date of the proposed fight. Rickard actually was in negotiations for the fight to take place in Chicago, but he had to pull it from there because of the injunction. It was merely found that the injunction was in effect specifically for Chicago, and could not be effective in Philly where the Tunney fight took place. I've posted all of this information in my previous post, including where Rickard said if the contract was found valid, he would shift the fight from Chicago to another place. So it is not true that it had no legal standing. It simply did have legal standing, but in Chicago.



FALSE. It wasn't "dismissed as frivolous." Again, the injunction proceedings took place in Indiana. Then, it was a circuit court in Chicago that was to decide on other monetary damages. That court stated that the Chicago Coliseum Club should be granted certain damages, including the costs it accrued to gain the injunction. Later on appeal, the decision of the circuit court was reversed and remanded. This was NOT a statement against the injunction, and it also was NOT a statement about whether Dempsey breached the contract. The court case as tried by the appeals court found that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract, and noted that the injunction was "IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT" at the time of the ruling.



What it disagreed with was the damages that could be sought. It found that Dempsey would be liable for nominal damages as well as damages accrued from the time the contract was sighed to the time of the breach of the contract. The ruling even states specifically that the judgement should be for the plaintiff (the Chicago Coliseum Club) plainly!

Just because the court allowed Dempsey to get off light does NOT mean that he was not found to have breached the contract!



NO COURT HAS DENIED THAT HE BROKE THE CONTRACT! ALL OF THE COURTS STATED OUTRIGHT THAT HE DID BREAK THE CONTRACT!



Again, you are pulling this out of thin air! If he didn't trust Chicago, then why was he so happy when he thought he could have the Tunney fight in Chicago? If he didn't trust Fitzsimmons, why did he thank him for getting out of the way and allowing the Tunney fight to happen. I have documentation to support both of these! It had LITTLE to do with Fitzsimmons and NOTHING to do with Chicago.



It was certainly about Dempsey ducking Wills. When you say you've wanted to fight a guy since 1919, and then you sign a contract, and a court of law says the contract is valid, and you do just about anything to get out of it, and when you can't, you simply run to another state to fight a different man...that's a duck. That's what happened and that is far stronger than what happened in '22.



This argument is like saying we can't say a runaway bride didn't want to marry the potential groom...because why would she have agreed in the first place, though she didn't show up to the altar. What was the answer she gave? (She said she didn't show up to the altar because of something that happened 6 months before they agreed to get married).

I can make the argument why didn't Dempsey take the $300,000 and get it on with Wills? He signed the contract and then changed his mind. But the question remains.

If a fighter signs a contract to fight, and then breaks the contract for NO VALID REASON, is that a duck? You've given a number of reasons for him breaking the contract, those being that it was corrupt Chicago and he was dealing with gangsters, which is pure speculation and not to be taken seriously since he was all set to fight Tunney in Chicago afterward. You also claimed he simply trusted Rickard more, but you never answered the question I had for you before:

Why wouldn't Dempsey take $300,000 on August 5th (which he could keep as per the contract no matter what) and wait for Wills, whom he stated is the ONLY man he wanted to fight since 1919, instead of breaking that contract and going into the Tunney match? Furthermore, he was to get MORE MONEY by fighting Wills at the most, and in the least, he gets the $300,000 AND the Tunney money. If any other boxers does this, that is simply a duck.

What this amounts to is Dempsey saying though Wills was the only man he ever wanted to fight since 1919, in 1926 he broke a valid contract that he signed to fight him because of something that happened 6 months BEFORE he even signed the contract.

This was a duck. There is no way around it.

We will never agree on this one.

Anyway . . .

This was a frivolous lawsuit and you're trying to use the plaintiff's convoluted arguments (which the appellate court roundly rejected) as proof that a legal contract existed. I don't see where you think Dempsey got off easy; he got off completely; the case was remanded for retrial.

I don't see why you had me read this? This appellate decision doesn't make your case, it concludes with: "For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded."

Was there a second trial, because all this is moot? They didn't let him off easy, the appellate court called it a "no decision" fight!

An again -- no, the injunction is granted because there has been NO DECISION regarding the contract, there was only a pending complaint; the court didn't draw any conclusion up to that point. Courts try to prevent an event if they believe there MIGHT be a legal compliant to be protected. The word injunction implies temporary restraint pending decision.

Anyway we beat this to death. Want to argue whether Arnold Rothstein had Dempsey poisoned for the Phily fight. Its got great characters attached to it, guys like Boo Boo Hoffman and such.

I think he did, the evidence is all circumstantial, but ponderous.

[travestyny]

We will never agree on this one.

Anyway . . .

This was a frivolous lawsuit and you're trying to use the plaintiff's convoluted arguments (which the appellate court roundly rejected) as proof that a legal contract existed. I don't see where you think Dempsey got off easy; he got off completely; the case was remanded for retrial.

You're not reading what I've posted. It was remanded FOR DAMAGES. NEVER did the court say he didn't breach the contract. It stated specifically that he CLEARLY breached the contract. It also stated that the injunction was active. How much money Dempsey was liable for is not my concern nor the point of the information I'm giving. You are stating falsehoods. Above you state I'm accepting falsehoods that were rejected regarding whether a legal contract existed. THE APPELLATE COURT STATED CLEARLY THAT A LEGAL CONTRACT EXISTED!

We are unable to conceive upon what theory the defendant could contend that there was no contract, as it appears to be admitted in the proceeding here and bears his signature and the amounts involved are sufficiently large to have created a rather lasting impression on the mind of anyone signing such an agreement.

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant...

Dude. It is A FACT that the appellate court agreed that he broke the contract!!!!!!

I don't see why you had me read this? This appellate decision doesn't make your case, it concludes with: "For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded."

The court DID NOT reverse the injunction. It DID NOT state that he didn't breach the contract.

The court stated that HE DID breach the contract. The court stated that the injunction WAS in full force and effect.

I don't know in how many other ways I can tell you this. The court disagreed that the promoter could get back some of the money which it was claiming for the damages, so it was remanded back for a new case regarding THE DAMAGES, of which the court agreed that Dempsey was responsible for. Why would he be responsible for damages if he didn't breach the contract? Why would the court state that he breached the contract....if he didn't breach the contract??????

Was there a second trial, because all this is moot? They didn't let him off easy, the appellate court called it a "no decision" fight!

FALSE. You're looking for a discussion of the amount of damages that he owes. The court said specifically that he broke the contract and that he is liable for damages. The amount of damages that he was responsible for were nominal only because the plaintiff wasn't able to prove how much money they could make from the fight. That does NOT deem that Dempsey was innocent of breaching the contract. Again, IN...THEIR...OWN...WORDS...DEMPSEY...CLEARLY... BREACHED...THE...CONTRACT!!!!

An again -- no, the injunction is granted because there has been NO DECISION regarding the contract, there was only a pending complaint; the court didn't draw any conclusion up to that point. Courts try to prevent an event if they believe there MIGHT be a legal compliant to be protected. The word injunction implies temporary restraint pending decision.

OH MY GOD DUDE. READ IT FOR YOURSELF. I CAN ONLY POST THIS SO MANY TIMES:

September 13, 1926, a decree was entered in the superior court of Marion county, finding that the contract was a valid and subsisting contract between the parties, and that the complainant had expended large sums of money in carrying out the terms of the agreement, and entering a decree that Dempsey be perpetually restrained and enjoined from in any way, wise, or manner, training or preparing for or participating in any contracts or engagements in furtherance of any boxing match, prize fight or any exhibition of like nature, and particularly from engaging or entering into any boxing match with one Gene Tunney, or with any person other than the one designated by plaintiff.

The injunction was granted because non-compliance would be a breach of the valid contract. It says it in plain English.

Anyway we beat this to death. Want to argue whether Arnold Rothstein had Dempsey poisoned for the Phily fight. Its got great characters attached to it, guys like Boo Boo Hoffman and such.

I think he did, the evidence is all circumstantial, but ponderous.

I have no information about this. I think you brought it up before and I asked you for information....not to argue about it, but just because I was curious. I have no desire to argue about anything and everything regarding Dempsey. I'm not the anti-Dempsey...but I am making opinions based on clear FACTS.

[Dempsey-Louis]

You're not reading what I've posted. It was remanded FOR DAMAGES. NEVER did the court say he didn't breach the contract. It stated specifically that he CLEARLY breached the contract. It also stated that the injunction was active. How much money Dempsey was liable for is not my concern nor the point of the information I'm giving. You are stating falsehoods. Above you state I'm accepting falsehoods that were rejected regarding whether a legal contract existed. THE APPELLATE COURT STATED CLEARLY THAT A LEGAL CONTRACT EXISTED!



Dude. It is A FACT that the appellate court agreed that he broke the contract!!!!!!




The court DID NOT reverse the injunction. It DID NOT state that he didn't breach the contract.

The court stated that HE DID breach the contract. The court stated that the injunction WAS in full force and effect.

I don't know in how many other ways I can tell you this. The court disagreed that the promoter could get back some of the money which it was claiming for the damages, so it was remanded back for a new case regarding THE DAMAGES, of which the court agreed that Dempsey was responsible for. Why would he be responsible for damages if he didn't breach the contract? Why would the court state that he breached the contract....if he didn't breach the contract??????



FALSE. You're looking for a discussion of the amount of damages that he owes. The court said specifically that he broke the contract and that he is reliable for damages. The amount of damages that he was responsible for were nominal only because the plaintiff wasn't able to prove how much money they could make from the fight. That does NOT deem that Dempsey was innocent of breaching the contract. Again, IN...THEIR...OWN...WORDS...DEMPSEY...CLEARLY... BREACHED...THE...CONTRACT!!!!



OH MY GOD DUDE. READ IT FOR YOURSELF. I CAN ONLY POST THIS SO MANY TIMES:



The injunction was granted because non-compliance would be a breach of the valid contract. It says it in plain English.




I have no information about this. I think you brought it up before and I asked you for information....not to argue about it, but just because I was curious. I have no desire to argue about anything and everything regarding Dempsey. I'm not the anti-Dempsey...but I am making opinions based on clear FACTS.

Can I read the September 13th quote in full? I can only find the appellate court remand, I don't see any info regarding a a judgement.

I mean arguing in a good way. Like debate, but I don't want to debate, let's argue.

I will try to put together a way to present it, need to think on it a bit. Like I said it is all circumstantial.

[travestyny]

Can I read the September 13th quote in full? I can only find the appellate court remand, I don't see any info regarding a a judgement.

The September 13 quote is from the appellate court remand. I gave you the link numerous times.





I hate to do this to you, but I have to ask you the same question that I kept asking Queenie that he won't answer. Just a simple yes or no would suffice.

Simple. Did the court find that Dempsey breached a valid contract? That's all I want to know.

Keep in mind this:

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant...

I mean come on. It even states the exact date of the breach!!!!

4th. Expenses incurred after the signing of the agreement and before the breach of July 10, 1926.
The items recoverable are such items of expense as were incurred between the date of the signing of the agreement and the breach of July 10, 1926, by the defendant and such as were incurred as a necessary expense in furtherance of the performance. Proof of such items should be made subject to the usual rules of evidence.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but it seems that no one who opposes me on this is willing to step up and answer that simple question, but I think you would.

I mean arguing in a good way. Like debate, but I don't want to debate, let's argue.

I will try to put together a way to present it, need to think on it a bit. Like I said it is all circumstantial.

LOL. I remember reading something about this vaguely. Like, his bodyguard gave him a shot glass of olive oil to drink, and they think someone paid him off to put something else in it or something like that? lol. Very odd.

[Dempsey-Louis]

The September 13 quote is from the appellate court remand. I gave you the link numerous times.





I hate to do this to you, but I have to ask you the same question that I kept asking Queenie that he won't answer. Just a simple yes or no would suffice.

Simple. Did the court find that Dempsey breached a valid contract? That's all I want to know.

Keep in mind this:



I mean come on. It even states the exact date of the breach!!!!




I'm not trying to be an ass, but it seems that no one who opposes me on this is willing to step up and answer that simple question, but I think you would.



LOL. I remember reading something about this vaguely. Like, his bodyguard gave him a shot glass of olive oil to drink, and they think someone paid him off to put something else in it or something like that? lol. Very odd.

Yes a lower court ruled that Dempsey breached the contract and then an appellate court overruled the judgment and remanded the case back for retrial, which did not happen.

Yes I will say it again, a lower court did indeed make such a judgement (I guess, I can't seem to find that one to read) but the appellate decision rendered it moot.

Unless something comes after that applet decision there is no judgment left standing.

This is like the strange situation with ***** pardoning Ali. If the Supreme Court reverses a decision the conviction no longer exists, there is nothing to pardon.

If the appellate court reverses the decision then Dempsey 'never breached a contract' legally, but yes it looks as though a lower court did come to such a judgment that's why there was an appeal.

[Dempsey-Louis]

A tease:

1960: In an interview with Ferdie Pacecho, Abe Attell is quoted as saying: “What the people don’t know about the Dempsey-Tunney fights is that it was the ***s against the Italians, and the ***s won.?/i>

[travestyny]

Yes a lower court ruled that Dempsey breached the contract and then an appellate court overruled the judgment and remanded the case back for retrial, which did not happen.

Yes I will say it again, a lower court did indeed make such a judgement (I guess, I can't seem to find that one to read) but the appellate decision rendered it moot.

Unless something comes after that applet decision there is no judgment left standing.

This is like the strange situation with ***** pardoning Ali. If the Supreme Court reverses a decision the conviction no longer exists, there is nothing to pardon.

If the appellate court reverses the decision then Dempsey 'never breached a contract' legally, but yes it looks as though a lower court did come to such a judgment that's why there was an appeal.

I'm really not sure how you can keep getting this wrong, unless you are just in extreme denial.

There are 3 courts involved here.

The first one was the court in Indiana that said Dempsey not only breached the contract, but also issued the injunction.

The second court is the circuit court in Chicago that reviewed the monetary damages that could be won by the promoter. This is the court that said the promoter could also seek the money that they spent in order to get the injunction from the first court.

Then there is the appellate court that said the promoter should not be able to get the money that the spent in order to get the injunction, but that there are some other charges that the promoter can very well get.

ALL OF THESE COURTS SAID THAT DEMPSEY BREACHED THE CONTRACT. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU CAN READ THIS:

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff proceeded with this character of litigation at its own risk.

AND ARGUE OTHERWISE. The court DID NOT reverse the opinion that he broke the contract. It only sought to revise what the promoter can win back from Dempsey, deeming that he is still GUILTY of breaking the contract.

Let's try this one more time. Did the APPELLATE COURT say that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract?

One more time...isn't this what the appellate court said:

After the clear breach of contract by the defendant...

Am I making that up, or did you read that there in the court brief?


Again, what was reversed is WHAT COULD BE WON BACK IN DAMAGES, NOT the decision about whether there was a valid contract that was breached.

[travestyny]

A tease:

1960: In an interview with Ferdie Pacecho, Abe Attell is quoted as saying: “What the people don’t know about the Dempsey-Tunney fights is that it was the ***s against the Italians, and the ***s won.?/i>

Say what? Tunney was ***ish...?

[Dempsey-Louis]

I'm really not sure how you can keep getting this wrong, unless you are just in extreme denial.

There are 3 courts involved here.

The first one was the court in Indiana that said Dempsey not only breached the contract, but also issued the injunction.

The second court is the circuit court in Chicago that reviewed the monetary damages that could be won by the promoter. This is the court that said the promoter could also seek the money that they spent in order to get the injunction from the first court.

Then there is the appellate court that said the promoter should not be able to get the money that the spent in order to get the injunction, but that there are some other charges that the promoter can very well get.

ALL OF THESE COURTS SAID THAT DEMPSEY BREACHED THE CONTRACT. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW YOU CAN READ THIS:



AND ARGUE OTHERWISE. The court DID NOT reverse the opinion that he broke the contract. It only sought to revise what the promoter can win back from Dempsey, deeming that he is still GUILTY of breaking the contract.

Let's try this one more time. Did the APPELLATE COURT say that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract?

One more time...isn't this what the appellate court said:



Am I making that up, or did you read that there in the court brief?


Again, what was reversed is WHAT COULD BE WON BACK IN DAMAGES, NOT the decision about whether there was a valid contract that was breached.

You can't reverse part of a decision; it's all or nothing; all was reversed and remanded for retrial.

A woman accuses you of raping her --- a bias jury finds you guilty --- you appeal --- the appellate court says that you are likely guilty --- but didn't get a fair trial --- and remands the decision back for retrial ---- the prosecutor doesn't believe he can get a conviction under the fair trial rules set down by the appellate court --- so he does not re-prosecute you.

Would it be OK with you if I went around saying you are a convicted rapist? That is what you are doing to Dempsey.

In your mind, is Ali a convicted draft dodger who needs a pardon? Same logic, same rules apply here to Dempsey's appeal and reversal, the answer is no.

But one last time, YES those mid-western court judges thought (claimed) Dempsey breached the contract, but no judgment was left standing.

It does not matter how many times you find it written down by any court, in the end it was a no decision, all of it. You can't reverse part of a decision.

I am going Forrest Gump, "That is all I have to say about that" - you get the last word if you want it.

On Tunney

Tunney was Irish Catholic and from Greenwich Village but I am not sure what Gibson was . . .

Gibson was connected to Attell (through the fight game) who was connected to Rothstein, (throught ******** and fixes) who was connected to Boo Boo Hoffman (through bootlegging).

They are the ***s involved.

Just two weeks before the fight someone warns Billy Gibson that the Italian mob in Philadelphia has big money down on Dempsey and Gibson is convinced they will try something to ensure their bet. Gibson goes to Attell for help, Attell, via Rothstein's directions, puts Gibson in touch with Boo Boo Hoffman a Philadelphia bootlegger and fight promoter.

Hoffman offers Gibson protection for a price, Hoffman will buy 20% of Tunney for fifty-thousand dollars and the whole sorted relationship begins . . . which ironically will end in 1932 in a Chicago court room, a civil suit, Hoffman vs. Tunney, over that 20%. (No ****, it ends with a breach of contract suit, in ****ing Chicago. Amazing isn't it?)

BTW that is just one of Billy Gibson's story lines regarding the 50K, there are three . . .

P.S. oops, it was 20K for 20%, sorry about that.

[travestyny]

You can't reverse part of a decision; it's all or nothing; all was reversed and remanded for retrial.

Dude, you have this entirely wrong. The case was brought to the circuit court for $500,000, and it was dismissed because The Chicago Coliseum Club could not prove their loss based on an event that depends on how many people buy tickets, the weather, etc.

THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CASE! MEANING THE REVERSE AND REMAND WAS IN FAVOR OF THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB, NOT DEMPSEY. IT STATED CLEARLY THAT THE FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE THEY WERE ENTITLED NOMINAL DAMAGES, WHICH MEANS THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED.

Under the evidence in the record in this proceeding there appears to have been a valid subsisting agreement between the plaintiff and Dempsey, in which Dempsey was to perform according to the terms of the agreement and which he refused to do, and the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was entitled at least to nominal damages. For this reason, if for no other, judgment should have been for the plaintiff.

Clearly both courts believed that Dempsey breached the contract. The circuit court dismissed the case, which was for $500,000, because it believed the amount could not be accurately calculated, while the appellate court said that this decision was the WRONG decision because the court should have not dismissed the case, but awarded the nominal damages.

You ducked this and you are trying like hell for some kind of technicality that doesn't exist. Did the appellate court say that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract? Just give a simple yes or no!!!

A woman accuses you of raping her --- a bias jury finds you guilty --- you appeal --- the appellate court says that you are likely guilty --- but didn't get a fair trial --- and remands the decision back for retrial ---- the prosecutor doesn't believe he can get a conviction under the fair trial rules set down by the appellate court --- so he does not re-prosecute you.

Man, you really have this backwards. DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB IS THE APPELLANT. When Dempsey appealed the injunction, his case was thrown out because the injunction had expired after September 1926 and he appealed it after that time.

It was already established that Dempsey breached the contract. The promoter appealed because they wanted to be awarded for some damages that they were denied, such as saying that a net profit of $1,600,000 was lost. They were also told that they couldn't recover the money that was paid in order to procure the injunction. They brought the suit to the circuit court for an amount of $500,000 and after the court looked at the damages, which clearly they wouldn't have even bothered to do if there was no breach of contract, the suit was improperly dismissed. They were denied these amounts in the circuit court because they couldn't prove that the fight would bring in a total of $3,000,000, which was their main contention, and couldn't prove that they should be given money for expenses that happened after the contract was already breached.

So everything you are saying about not getting a fair trial is actually being stated in support of the Chicago Coliseum Club, being that they are the one who appealed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and said:

1. Dempsey clearly breached the contract.

2. The judgement should have been for the Chicago Coliseum Club because they were clearly owed money, even if not the significant amount they asked for.

3. The case was reversed and remanded so that the Chicago Coliseum Club could present MORE evidence regarding (nominal) damages.

Now that you went on the rant about Dempsey being in the right because the case was reversed and remanded, I wonder if you will be consistent and say The Chicago Coliseum Club was in the right because actually the case was reversed and remanded specifically FOR THE PROMOTER TO RECEIVE THE DAMAGES THAT THEY WERE OWED DUE TO THE BREACH OF CONTRACT. (Including the $10 that they gave for consideration. Just thought that was a funny bit to add some levity to this conversation. The case brief actually states that! ).

Would it be OK with you if I went around saying you are a convicted rapist? That is what you are doing to Dempsey.

In your mind, is Ali a convicted draft dodger who needs a pardon? Same logic, same rules apply here to Dempsey's appeal and reversal, the answer is no.

DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB APPEALED. SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB!

So should we go around saying that they weren't owed money, when the court specifically said that they were, by law, owed money due to the breach of contract?

But one last time, YES those mid-western court judges thought (claimed) Dempsey breached the contract, but no judgment was left standing.

It does not matter how many times you find it written down by any court, in the end it was a no decision, all of it. You can't reverse part of a decision.

I am going Forrest Gump, "That is all I have to say about that" - you get the last word if you want it.

YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING TO YOURSELF AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS ON A TECHNICALITY. THE SUIT BROUGHT TO THE APPEALS COURT WAS BROUGHT BY THE PROMOTER. THE JUDGEMENT THAT WASN'T LEFT STANDING WAS THE DISMISSAL OF THE $500,000 SUIT IN DEMPSEY'S FAVOR. THEY STATED THAT DEMPSEY CLEARLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT, AS WAS ALSO STATED IN THE INDIANA COURT WHEN THEY GOT THE INJUNCTION, AND THAT HE WAS LIABLE FOR AT LEAST NOMINAL DAMAGES.

You have to admit that you had this completely backwards, and you can't backtrack now, buddy. The reversal that you have been championing was actually not in Dempsey's favor, but in the promoter's favor. And again, they clearly state, in plain English, that he breached the contract and, more importantly and specifically to their purpose of the appeal, he was liable for damages and that the circuit court erred in the dismissal.

Come on, Dempsey-Louis,

• you went from saying that the injunction was granted by corrupt Chicago judges, but it was actually granted by an Indiana judge.
  
• You claimed the promoters were gangsters whom Dempsey wanted no part of, but that is pure speculation.
  
• You claimed Dempsey thought he couldn't trust Fitzsimmons, whom he went out of his way to thank for trying to help him get out of this mess with the Chicago Coliseum Club.
  
• You claimed that Dempsey wanted to get away from Chicago, yet the injunction was the only reason that the Tunney fight didn't take place in Chicago.
  
• You then went on and on about Dempsey appealing, when it was in fact the promoter who was appealing, and you claim that the reversal means that Dempsey gets off scot free, and I bet you will backtrack now that it was revealed that the reversal is in favor of the Promoter.

If you look at the above, you have to admit that you are being biased here. I don't really mean to bust your chops (well I do mean it I guess, but not in a malicious way), but you have to admit that you are really distorting things any way you can to not see this clearly.

On Tunney

Tunney was Irish Catholic and from Greenwich Village but I am not sure what Gibson was . . .

Gibson was connected to Attell (through the fight game) who was connected to Rothstein, (throught ******** and fixes) who was connected to Boo Boo Hoffman (through bootlegging).

They are the ***s involved.

Just two weeks before the fight someone warns Billy Gibson that the Italian mob in Philadelphia has big money down on Dempsey and Gibson is convinced they will try something to ensure their bet. Gibson goes to Attell for help, Attell, via Rothstein's directions, puts Gibson in touch with Boo Boo Hoffman a Philadelphia bootlegger and fight promoter.

Hoffman offers Gibson protection for a price, Hoffman will buy 20% of Tunney for fifty-thousand dollars and the whole sorted relationship begins . . . which ironically will end in 1932 in a Chicago court room, a civil suit, Hoffman vs. Tunney, over that 20%. (No ****, it ends with a breach of contract suit, in ****ing Chicago. Amazing isn't it?)

After these conversations, we will never want to talk about breach of contracts in Chicago ever again

BTW that is just one of Billy Gibson's story lines regarding the 50K, there are three . . .

P.S. oops, it was 20K for 20%, sorry about that.

Man, what a mess. So what happened with the alleged drugging of Demp?