• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Otterbox

Lasers - Applying a Blow Torch

Recommended Posts

More recently, Gantt has been suggesting that the following statement from the class is false:

 

"..the ILCA Class Rules, which requires that ....

 

In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."

 

Let's go through components of the statement to see if we can discover any blatant falsehood

 

1. The ILCA is not a party to any of these "Kirby" agreements. TRUE

2. The current rules at the time required a builder needed a building agreement . ALSO TRUE (Gantt wishes that rule was retained)

3. This provision of the rules is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights.

 

It is #3 that I think bothers Gantt the most. However it is not a false statement.

The rule was instituted when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. In 1983 Bruce Kirby warranted that he owned the copyright to the design of the Laser. Copyright is one of four "design rights" recognized in US Law. (Copyright, Patent, Trade Mark and Trade Dress).

What had changed to make the rule "mostly historic"?

1. At its most simple, that copyright (if it ever existed)had expired by 2011. But I think the Class was more concerned with a second more fundamental change .

2. Kirby had sold his contractual rights (which everyone seems to be calling design rights even if strictly speaking that is incorrect) to the highest bidder. That changed everything. That made the provision in the rule historic ....and in my personal opinion a rule that should be removed and never reinstated. The Class should have no objection to Bruce and subsequent commercial parties selling the royalty/fee income BUT the Class should not allow the right to terminate the Class builders to become a marketable asset which could be sold to the highest bidder.

 

Historically, the Class had a position where the Class, ISAF, the trademark holders and Bruce Kirby had all agreed to three builders and three regions. This changed when a transaction made it clear that the rule could be abused by anyone with enough money to buy those rights. Historically those rights haf always remained with Bruce....but we are in a new era and at the time of the statement, Bruce had sold those rights!.

 

It was not a false statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt further claims in post 3617

 

The ILCA took into consideration Farzad Rastegar's assertion that Kirby and the Spencers were in a conspiracy together

 

 

I have no idea how to respond to that allegation because I have seen no statement from the Class Association alleging such a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to agree with Gantt, who is being a total dickhead and is getting so much of the law wrong, but he is absolutely correct that the class made false statements to the members when it came to the vote. He lists 3 such statements, but he omits the fact that the association also told members to vote as soon as possible and that they implied that there was an advantage to voting quickly, ahead of the deadline for votes to be cast. They implied that an early vote would help assure supply. this was totally false, because the vote total could not be announced until after the deadline for votes had passed. It was specifically done in order to get people to vote before BK had the opportunity to tell his side of the story. It is a fact that members on other forums have expressed their anger, stating that if they had know both sides of the story, they would have voted differently and that they were coerced to vote early by wrong information.

 

The class was wrong to state that the agreement was "mostly historic" for 2 reasons. First, there had been fairly recent changes and second, payments had been made recently under the agreement. It was a current agreement that was now in dispute.

 

There are class members who have said that they believe if the association had been more accurate in their statements, the vote would not have been passed. Some claim that certain members of the committee knew exactly what they were doing when the wording was chosen. If they did not, their choice of words is very strange and in some cases, they had to be stupid. In fact, they either knew what they were doing or they had to be incompetently stupid.

 

This is one of my biggest gripes against the association. If they had laid the facts out correctly and the class had voted that way, I would have far less issues with what has happened.

 

 

I sympathize with Simon's concerns. Simon has disagreed with the class position, voted against the rule amendment and argued (cogently) why he would have preferred a different outcome.

 

However I would part company with his suggestion that the Class made a false statement that "the agreement was mostly historic". It was Gantt who has been implying the Class said that the builders agreements were historic. The Class never said that. What the class actually said was that the "provision", meaning the provision in the class rules, was mostly historic . As you can see it is my opinion that the rule was historic and needed to change.

 

Regarding timing, I quote the Class statement which merely said: "Please do not delay your vote". I dont think that is unreasonable in the circumstances but as an opponent to the proposal I understand your concern to allow time for the response.

To be fair to the class, they indicated that even after the vote was taken they would allow time for the matter to be resolved.

 

"ILCA has always preferred a peaceful solution. If all three parties are close to agree on a solution, we will not stay in their way and give them reasonable time to conclude their negotiations on a new licence agreement with Laser Performance Europe."

 

So the Class was not opposed to giving time to negotiate a new license agreement.....but the Class was also sending a fairly emphatic message going forward that no builder gets dismissed via the Class rule without the Class Association say so.

 

In the end, what happened here is that nobody can use Class rules to fire a builder without the approval of the Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up my view on the Class's decision to change the class rule:

 

1. The Class stated that the primary reason to change the class rule was to preserve the supply of boats and parts to their members. By that measure the Class has succeeded. Europeans continue to have boats and parts throughout the dispute.

 

2. The rule change did not and does not affect the contractual obligations of the various commercial parties under the builders agreements. They have had various opportunities to resolve their disputes regarding royalties, territories and termination notices. If they fail to resolve those complex disputes among themselves, then the court will resolve them.

 

As regards the law case:

1. I confess a personal bias to Bruce keeping some or all of the money paid by GS (partially funded by a settlement from LP) during the court process but we dont know all the facts.

2. IMO, none of the parties will have a remote chance of success in a claim of tortious interference against the Association.

3. The builders need their heads knocking together to come to settlement.

 

With that I must bid y'all a fond farewell for now as I have other boats to sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Regarding timing, I quote the Class statement which merely said: "Please do not delay your vote". I dont think that is unreasonable in the circumstances but as an opponent to the proposal I understand your concern to allow time for the response.

To be fair to the class, they indicated that even after the vote was taken they would allow time for the matter to be resolved.

 

 

 

I think you will find that when there is a Class vote, they almost always ask members not to delay their votes. I think the reason is that they have found from experience that if people put off voting they never do get round to doing it. Personally I thought it was a fairly complex situation which was difficult to understand and I wanted to wait to hear other points of view before I voted. Other members could easily have made that choice too. Nobody was forcing us to vote the first day the ballot was open.

 

Wait!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I canntt wait to see the book that is coming and what % is cut and paste. Anyone want to set an over/under on the # words and take bets?

 

And that its still about the vote... Kinda funny that the thread is so stuck on the vote when that is not really even part of the litigation. The more interesting part to me is Kirby's claims against the builder. There I think (most think?) he has some battles he can win at least for prior royalties and maybe for some future but am curious to see a ruling and LPE's next steps after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are hilarious .

 

Try standing and screaming the posts out loud at your feet after races dinner. That should make them even better

 

 

Shout!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I canntt wait to see the book that is coming and what % is cut and paste. Anyone want to set an over/under on the # words and take bets?

 

And that its still about the vote... Kinda funny that the thread is so stuck on the vote when that is not really even part of the litigation. The more interesting part to me is Kirby's claims against the builder. There I think (most think?) he has some battles he can win at least for prior royalties and maybe for some future but am curious to see a ruling and LPE's next steps after that.

 

 

At least 1,000 words. 80% of them copied from previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not SA's longest thread but you guys really are trying. And you do not even talk about the legal action, just comments made up by a few posters.

The square headed (power head) main (9.6sq'm) Laser is a hoot. I have a RaceQ's log showing the boat maintaining speed at 13.8-14.5 for a while. I assumed the 14.8kt speed top was a motion blip and not real. Unsure what wind speed was a the time but high enough that I opted for chicken gybes. The local NOAA wizzometer spanned from 14-32 that day. And I finally achieved the dream. I bent the lower section as well as the upper. I really thought the mast cup would go before that happened but the taught string between the top and bottom of both sections says that I have seriously bent mast things. Hopefully I can bend them back. In the mean time I await the new carbon upper section from Intensity but now I'm thinking I should have taken their advice and ordered the mast that replaces the shimmed mast with single tube. Bet that's fun.

No more motions to chat about? I came here for Laser/Torch dirt. Not to be bored with Wess's bad taste in music (except 'Priest, always room for Judas F'n Priest). The long posts I just scroll by. :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I confess that over the last three years I have posted far too much on this topic. I allowed myself to get sucked in by IPLore, who has successfully trolled me. The act of posting another long post about what was said on this forum, is to fall victim to IPLore's trolling again.


To some extent, (particularly more recently) I have turned into somewhat of a troll myself, by making "mistakes" about legal issues which IPLore predictably responded to. (Yes, I trolled back - a first for me - and no longer feel the need). This has been painful for many - for which I unreservedly apologize.


I won’t post a response to any of IPLore’s seven posts, and will stop the practice of quoting posts in their entirety.

________________________________________________________________________


For anyone who can be bothered looking at IPLore's seven posts in detail, they will see that I have been misquoted again, and IPLore did not address the issues other than to claim that there were no false statements. In spite of what IPLore put forward, I'm not convinced - no surprises there.


IPLore was misleading and dishonest - trolling - and with IPLore's posts over the last day or so, the proof is absolute.


I wrote another long post detailing how (now deleted), which I am happy to send to anyone who asks - just message me and I shall send the information. (I somehow doubt that anyone will ask.)

________________________________________________________________________


What IPLore does not want us to talk about is the ILCA. That is clear from his three years of fairly successful misdirection and trolling, though more recently, less so successful. Why IPLore has done this or who he is, is of no consequence, though in his last dozen or so posts, he has provided some insight into how a select few in the World Council may have rationalised the making their 2011 fundamental rule change.


There is a possibility that those of us who care can provide the ILCA with positive options - and a slimmer chance (still possible) of ending ILCA's involvement in Kirby's legal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not SA's longest thread but you guys really are trying. And you do not even talk about the legal action, just comments made up by a few posters.

 

The square headed (power head) main (9.6sq'm) Laser is a hoot. I have a RaceQ's log showing the boat maintaining speed at 13.8-14.5 for a while. I assumed the 14.8kt speed top was a motion blip and not real. Unsure what wind speed was a the time but high enough that I opted for chicken gybes. The local NOAA wizzometer spanned from 14-32 that day. And I finally achieved the dream. I bent the lower section as well as the upper. I really thought the mast cup would go before that happened but the taught string between the top and bottom of both sections says that I have seriously bent mast things. Hopefully I can bend them back. In the mean time I await the new carbon upper section from Intensity but now I'm thinking I should have taken their advice and ordered the mast that replaces the shimmed mast with single tube. Bet that's fun.

 

No more motions to chat about? I came here for Laser/Torch dirt. Not to be bored with Wess's bad taste in music (except 'Priest, always room for Judas F'n Priest). The long posts I just scroll by. :blink:

The tubes can be bent back and my kids say I represent that last remark re: taste in music.

 

So I guess this is more your style FS? :D

 

 

CSN&Y rules... at least till the court finally does or the BK and LPE settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take the music to the land where all future lasers torches ;) will be built...

 

Please... no more Bieber... it's just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it.

 

Enough is enough.

 

I have tolerated Gouvernail for many years. Even agreed with him occasionally.

 

I have persevered through millions of words of incoherent rambling from Gantt.

 

But Justin Bieber????

 

That's just unacceptable. it's wrong.

 

I am going sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to bring this dialogue back the subject matter of this thread, I think Justin Bieber is Bruce Kirby's grandson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Justin Bieber vote for or against the fundamental law change?

 

(Kirby would be gutted if his grandson voted against him!)

 

Seriously, if the ILCA are off to Shanghai to measure Lasers Torches, then they could do it around October 5. http://www.smartshanghai.com/smartticket/justin-bieber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Gantt,

 

I want to apologize if I may have been a little harsh on you. I fear I got my teeth into the cross examination.

 

I suspect you have noticed how I have managed to avoid posting any music videos. I am more prone to quotations and this one seems apropos:

 

"And do as adversaries do in law –

 

Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends."

William Shakespeare.

I originally joined the thread because I thought I might inject a little legal insight into the discussion.

I felt you had crossed a grey line when you started attributing a misplaced motive and false statements to the folks running the Laser Class. If I may make a suggestion, you might want to consider an apology. to two individuals, one as a volunteer, the other as a professional, who have given back so much to supporting a sport that we love.

Which.....OMG....brings us all the way back to Justin Bieber.

No music video but.....

You gotta go and get angry at all of my honesty
You know I try but I don't do too well with apologies
I hope I don't run out of time, could someone call the referee?
'Cause I just need one more shot at forgiveness
I know you know that I made those mistakes maybe once or twice
And by once or twice I mean maybe a couple a hundred times
So let me, oh let me redeem, oh redeem, oh myself tonight
I just need one more shot, second chances

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Gantt,

 

 

I felt you had crossed a grey line when you started attributing a misplaced motive and false statements to the folks running the Laser Class. If I may make a suggestion, you might want to consider an apology. to two individuals, one as a volunteer, the other as a professional, who have given back so much to supporting a sport that we love.

 

Hear hear!

 

No more Bieber please. Even if he is Gantt's grandson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No more Bieber please. Even if he is Gantt's grandson.

 

 

You sir, just won this thread. Thirty-seven pages of bullshit, but the best post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to write this this, but will, because I have raised this 'mistake' of IPLore's previously about this exact point. I'm pissed. After lying, IPLore wants me to apologise. What a dickhead.



IPLore is making the same 'mistake' again, it's difficult to avoid that the 'mistake' is deliberate and he is putting forward a mistruth.



It's important, because IPLore is trying to argue that the ILCA did not make false statements in 2011.



Exactly why you are lying IPLore?



IPLore would not have missed my multiple references that the Heini Wellmann quote was from the Dec 2011 of Laser World and made after the vote. (He even responded to some). Here’s the exact quote again:




As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder. ILCA is the victim of a conflict it has no direct influence on.





This is a different quote from the one that IPLore said I was referring to and I have raised this previously.


IPLore made multiple references to my use of the words "no knowledge", claiming that the ILCA did not use them. When you read my complete phrase and the quote I was referring to, you may understand that my use is very different to what IPLore puts forward. I said this to SM123 on 12 June:




If Jeff Martin had knowledge of even part of the builder’s contract it means that he had knowledge of Builder’s Agreement content and that Hieni Wellmann’s claim that the ILCA had no knowledge of the content was false.


So let’s look at what it takes to make Heini Wellman’s statement of the ILCA having no knowledge of the content of the builder’s agreement. Here’s his statement again:


“As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder.”


SM123, are you still putting forward that Jeff Martin had no knowledge of the content of the builder’s agreement? (I know you have put forward that Jeff Martin did not have full knowledge, but that’s different, and crucial if what Heini Wellmann said was false.)




Finally, the ILCA made statements which were false.


Nothing which IPLore said in his last eight posts change the fact that the ILCA made false statements in 2011.


Specifically, ILCA's false statements include:

  1. The ILCA claimed "The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." The Builder's licences are dependant on the ISAF Agreement which the ILCA is party to. This ILCA statement is false.
  2. The ILCA claimed "The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired". There were no patents relating to the Laser yacht. This ILCA statement is false.

IPLore deliberately misquoting me with the use of "no knowledge", or talking about the use of the word "historic" does not change the above, which I am satisfied are facts. It's clear that IPLore is attempting to misdirect. Either Wess and Tiller Man are complicit in IPLore's mischief, or are somehow blind to it.



Apologies for boring you all with all of this. I'd rather be looking at how to get the ILCA out of Kirby's legal action.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make it clear, I cannot understate how fucked off I am that IPLore is lying about what I said, then when asking me to apologise to Heini and Jeff, makes another fucking lie. And Wess / Tiller Man, your support in IPLore is noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't want to write this this, but will, because I have raised this 'mistake' of IPLore's previously about this exact point. I'm pissed. After lying, IPLore wants me to apologise. What a dickhead.

IPLore is making the same 'mistake' again, it's difficult to avoid that the 'mistake' is deliberate and he is putting forward a mistruth.

It's important, because IPLore is trying to argue that the ILCA did not make false statements in 2011.

Exactly why you are lying IPLore?

IPLore would not have missed my multiple references that the Heini Wellmann quote was from the Dec 2011 of Laser World and made after the vote. (He even responded to some). Here’s the exact quote again:

As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder. ILCA is the victim of a conflict it has no direct influence on.
This is a different quote from the one that IPLore said I was referring to and I have raised this previously.
IPLore made multiple references to my use of the words "no knowledge", claiming that the ILCA did not use them. When you read my complete phrase and the quote I was referring to, you may understand that my use is very different to what IPLore puts forward. I said this to SM123 on 12 June:

If Jeff Martin had knowledge of even part of the builder’s contract it means that he had knowledge of Builder’s Agreement content and that Hieni Wellmann’s claim that the ILCA had no knowledge of the content was false.
So let’s look at what it takes to make Heini Wellman’s statement of the ILCA having no knowledge of the content of the builder’s agreement. Here’s his statement again:
“As you know the conflict centres on the validity and existence of a licence contract between the design rights holder (it is currently not even clear who that is) and a builder. ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content, but in our current fundamental rule the existence of such a contract is one of the requirements for a recognised builder.”
SM123, are you still putting forward that Jeff Martin had no knowledge of the content of the builder’s agreement? (I know you have put forward that Jeff Martin did not have full knowledge, but that’s different, and crucial if what Heini Wellmann said was false.)
Finally, the ILCA made statements which were false.
Nothing which IPLore said in his last eight posts change the fact that the ILCA made false statements in 2011.
Specifically, ILCA's false statements include:
  1. The ILCA claimed "The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." The Builder's licences are dependant on the ISAF Agreement which the ILCA is party to. This ILCA statement is false.
  2. The ILCA claimed "The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired". There were no patents relating to the Laser yacht. This ILCA statement is false.

IPLore deliberately misquoting me with the use of "no knowledge", or talking about the use of the word "historic" does not change the above, which I am satisfied are facts. It's clear that IPLore is attempting to misdirect. Either Wess and Tiller Man are complicit in IPLore's mischief, or are somehow blind to it.

Apologies for boring you all with all of this. I'd rather be looking at how to get the ILCA out of Kirby's legal action.

 

Relax and enjoy Bieber Gannt. The judge will take care of "get[ting] ILCA out of Kirby's legal action."

 

TGIF - Time to go sailing all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tiller Man for reminding me of what a great band Pink Floyd was.

But by now,

this thread has made me Comfortably Numb...

 

And,

will the Connecticut judge ever get to The Other Side Of The Moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest way for the Laser Class to get out of Kirby's lawsuit would be for Kirby to instruct his lawyers to withdraw the suit.

 

And then Kirby could apologize to the Laser Class for suing us in the first place - and reimburse our legal fees.

 

Don't bring me down, Bruce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Kirby, he asked the ILCA to quit issuing builder plagues with his name on them and the Class continued anyway.

Is it now wrong to sue an entity who, after forty years of being trusted with sales and distribution of your asserts, suddenly starts giving away those assets to deadbeats??

 

My impression is Kirby is merely seeking compensation from the ILCA for their alleged improper distribution.

 

I do t see how asking for help from a third party makes a person bad.

Oh come on... you can troll better than that.

 

You know Kirby's name is not on any plaques issued today.

 

And then there is this whole "don't bite the hand that feeds you" concept... :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouvernail is right.

One of Kirby's main beefs with the Laser Class seems to be that we kept on issuing little shiny stickers with his name on after he had politely asked us to stop.

 

Personally I wouldn't mind having my name on little shiny stickers wherever anyone wanted to stick them.

But Kirby apparently has a trademark on his name and he said he wanted to put little shiny stickers with his name on some boats called Torches and didn't want his name on little shiny stickers on boats called Lasers any more.

 

I have never seen a Torch so I can't say if Torches have little shiny stickers with Kirby's name on.

 

It does seem like an awful lot of fuss about shiny stickers with the words Bruce and Kirby on them.

Be that as it may, Kirby apparently thought it a good idea to sue the Laser Class for issuing little shiny stickers with his name on them.

 

Some lawyers are getting very rich making lots of complicated arguments about little shiny stickers.

Some of that money is coming from the Laser Class - i.e. indirectly from dues paying members of the Laser Class like me.

 

I am not happy that my money goes to pay lawyers so they can argue about little shiny stickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

According to Kirby, he asked the ILCA to quit issuing builder plagues with his name on them and the Class continued anyway.

.

So now Kirby is owed royalties <Snip> .,??

First off I only repeated Kirby's claim. I did NOT reference whether he is owed money because I neither know what contracts he has in place not how the judge will eventually someday get around to ruling.

 

The plaques are shiny stickers that were distributed to the builders by the ILCA

 

The stickers had the hull number and some wording.

That wording included something about the boat being a Laser, recognized by ILCA, and words about Kirby.

 

Kirby requested ILCA quit sending those stickers to a particular builder who was no longer paying for the privledge of using Kirby's name.

 

Kirby claims ILCA continued issuing those stickers

 

And

 

Kirby claims ILCA decided to cut him out of the Laser sailboat business by changing the ILCA fundamental rule and simply removing Kirby's name from stickers issued after that.

 

I was explaining shy Kirby sued the class.

I do not know if his suit is 100%!justified or bogus.

 

Sears has gone on without Roebuck

 

Time quit mentioning Life and then took up with Warner and now They go by Charter

 

Did Kirby agree to this?

 

Did he have a contract preventing his dismissal??

 

There are hundreds of posts in this thread from a.bunch of ignorant out of the loop speculators.

 

I won't hazard a guess.

 

And Simon went on without Garfunkel

 

I know what I know...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much anger for too early in the AM. Light breeze but flat water till the powerboaters wake up. I am going sailing.

 

"Got out of town on a boat for the southern islands (OK, out the river and the the other side of the Bay for me)"

 

 

Why do you guys get so angry about this stuff?

 

We have access to boats, the water and a group of folks that like to race Lasers. The builder and designer are fighting in court where they belong to see how much more rich they will get off us and the case is moving slowly. Seems perfect. Wasn't it you, Gouv that said, blah, blah, blah, blah....

 

Fifty cents (err pages) here we come!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the ILCA and builders as his teammates, all three did very well.

Better than any other similar sailboat trio in history.

 

Builders have come and gone but Kirby and the ILCA have kept Laser sailing alive.

 

LP decided kirby was An unnecessary gear in the motor

 

Maybe they were right. Maybe they screwed themselves

 

The class decided to cut ties too

 

Maybe they were right ..... Or not

 

 

But Kirby claims he has contracts that should hold the house of cards together

 

The judge if he ever rules someday may possibly give a legal answer

 

 

We will

Never know whether the best path for the class would have been to tell LP, "keep paying Kirby or we are going to change the name of the game and get a builder who enthusiastically supports our game "

 

The class could have suggested we get all our toys from the Aussies with a quid pro quo about funding the ILCA and the championships

 

LP chose to cut ties

 

The ILCA decided to cut ties with Kirby

 

Repeating:

I have no idea if it was the best idea or allowed under the alleged contracts

 

Maybe someday the judge might rule on the contract part

 

Then there can be twenty five years of appeals

 

 

No matter what happens???? It makes no difference to me or the billions who have not ever sailed Lasers

 

 

 

Good points Gouvernail..

But remember that when the class called the vote on the Fundamental Rule change they weren't dealing with Bruce Kirby. They were dealing with some company called Global Sailing who said they owned another company called Bruce Kirby Inc. who in turn claimed to own some design rights. It was Bruce who cut his ties with the class - and with LP - by selling BKI to Global Sailing.

Right before the voting closed, Bruce did announce that he had bought his rights back but it was a bit too late by then to affect the outcome of the vote.

I have no idea if the class's decision will turn out to be the best idea in the long run either. Time will tell. But I do think that the leaders of our class are good people who did what they thought was the best for us the members in what was a very difficult and murky situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But remember that when the class called the vote on the Fundamental Rule change they weren't dealing with Bruce Kirby

 

Its difficult to know what the ILCA executive thought because they were so secretive and, I fear, misleading about everything. But blaming poor Kirby when it was the ILCA executive who decided to jump in the middle of the mud hole with size 14 boots on seems a bit strong. Once they had decided to jump slap bang into the mess I don't really see how they could be got out again. Probably their last chance would have been to postpone the fundamental rule vote when it became evident the situation had changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So changing company ownership is difficult and murky?


Let's say that the sale was completed, and GS actually obtained BK's design rights.


Laser Performance was bought by Farzad Rastegar. So what some are saying is that according to the ILCA it was OK for Laser Performance to have a new owner, but not BKI?


Maybe it was good judgment for the ILCA to listen to Rastegar, but not to listen to GS, or later, Kirby?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make it clear, I cannot understate how fucked off I am that IPLore is lying about what I said, then when asking me to apologise to Heini and Jeff, makes another fucking lie. And Wess / Tiller Man, your support in IPLore is noted.

 

I was careful to quote you precisely. I attached the post# besides most of your quotes. You are welcome to check them, so is everyone else. Which post are you denying?

 

Yes, I suggested you consider an apology to Heini and Jeff. You accused them personally and in a public published domain of making false statements with the motive of securing the class vote. You stated them as facts. You identified yourself as the person stating these facts. Here AGAIN is one sample (of many) of your exact words:-

 

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann solicited votes for the rule change by making statements which were false

 

 

You also stated as a fact that they did not act in the best interest of the members of the Class Association.

 

In my humble opinion, you defamed the character of two members of the sailing community and harmed them. Leaving aside the legal implications of your posts (Its hard to imagine that they do not amount to libel even if I doubt that they have the means or the inclination to pursue a claim against you), there are the ethical considerations. You misquote and besmirch two people who have given to sailing. I thought I detected that you acknowledged that you had made some mistakes and gone too far. I offered Shakespeare as a hand of friendship. I was wrong.

 

It takes moral fiber and true character to acknowledge when one is wrong and apologize. You sir, lack that moral fiber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just to make it clear, I cannot understate how fucked off I am that IPLore is lying about what I said, then when asking me to apologise to Heini and Jeff, makes another fucking lie. And Wess / Tiller Man, your support in IPLore is noted.

 

I was careful to quote you precisely. I attached the post# besides most of your quotes. You are welcome to check them, so is everyone else. Which post are you denying?

 

Yes, I suggested you consider an apology to Heini and Jeff. You accused them personally and in a public published domain of making false statements with the motive of securing the class vote. You stated them as facts. You identified yourself as the person stating these facts. Here AGAIN is one sample (of many) of your exact words:-

 

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann solicited votes for the rule change by making statements which were false

 

 

You also stated as a fact that they did not act in the best interest of the members of the Class Association.

 

In my humble opinion, you defamed the character of two members of the sailing community and harmed them. Leaving aside the legal implications of your posts (Its hard to imagine that they do not amount to libel even if I doubt that they have the means or the inclination to pursue a claim against you), there are the ethical considerations. You misquote and besmirch two people who have given to sailing. I thought I detected that you acknowledged that you had made some mistakes and gone too far. I offered Shakespeare as a hand of friendship. I was wrong.

 

It takes moral fiber and true character to acknowledge when one is wrong and apologize. You sir, lack that moral fiber.

 

 

 

Well said IPLore.

 

Gantt certainly owes Jeff and Heini apologies.

 

He has repeatedly made libelous and untrue and defamatory accusations against Jeff and Heini and caused them irreparable harm.

 

IPLore, you have conclusively proved the falseness of Gantt's statements about Jeff and Heini.

 

I appeal to Gantt to admit his mistakes and to apologize to those he has libeled.

 

I think Gantt is deep down a decent person and, in spite of all his lies and libels, I will congratulate him wholeheartedly if he issues these apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly why you are lying IPLore?

If Jeff Martin had knowledge of even part of the builder’s contract it means that he had knowledge of Builder’s Agreement content and that Hieni Wellmann’s claim that the ILCA had no knowledge of the content was false.
Finally, the ILCA made statements which were false.
Nothing which IPLore said in his last eight posts change the fact that the ILCA made false statements in 2011.
Specifically, ILCA's false statements include:
  1. The ILCA claimed "The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." The Builder's licences are dependant on the ISAF Agreement which the ILCA is party to. This ILCA statement is false.
  2. The ILCA claimed "The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired". There were no patents relating to the Laser yacht. This ILCA statement is false.

Apologies for boring you all with all of this. I'd rather be looking at how to get the ILCA out of Kirby's legal action.

 

 

Gantt presents us with two more statements that he claims were false.

 

Lets deal with these quickly.

 

1. The ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

Specifically, at the time of the vote, the contract at issue was the builders contract between LPE and Bruce Kirby Inc.

(i) They are not party to the contract. The contract clearly states who are the parties to the contract and ILCA is not a party. Referencing another contract or document does not make ILCA a party to the builders contract. If the builder and BKI had decided to incorporate an article from Tillerman's proper course blog, it would not make Tillerman a party to the contract.

(ii) FWIW, Gantt's statement that the Builders contracts "depend" on the 1983 ISAF agreement is also misguided. The contract commits the parties to seek to maintain international status but if the Laser had lost its international status, the contracts would still be valid. (In BK's favor...his builder contracts are not terminated solely because ISAF terminated the ISAF agreement with Kirby)

 

Bottom line...the ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

 

2. Kirby's Intellectual Property rights had expired.

Kirby had claimed in 1983 that he had copyrighted the design. This is warranted on the ISAF agreement. I personally suspect it is unlikely that Bruce registered any intellectual property rights on the design of a boat pre 1983. If he did it would be more likely that he filed a patent. His latest statements suggest that he did neither. Nevertheless the ILCA lawyers took the safe route They did not want to risk saying BK had never patented or copyrighted the design....they probably simply did not know that with any confidence.

Nevertheless they could say with complete confidence that any patent (last longer than design copyright) had expired.

Can you imagine the ramifications if the Class said he had no patents...and it turned out that he did.....even if they had expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response to your seven posts made it clear where and how you were misquoting me IPLore. It's laughable that you are accusing me of misquoting. I regret 'trolling you back' as it lowered me to your standard. You have made mistakes IPLore, and have proven yourself to be a liar. This last post above is an insult to anyone who cares about the ILCA - as it's one among several that supports the actions of the ILCA in 2011.

 

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann asked the membership to vote yes to the Fundamental Rule change - that is solicitation. I am satisfied that the voting form included false statements, which ILCA members were asked to consider as justification to vote yes.

 

There is nothing humble about your slanted posts IPLore.

 

Again, such questions do not take away from the years which Jeff Martin has contributed to the ILCA and sailing in general - and again - that does not make him above reproach. (Same for Heini Wellmann, though as mentioned previously, it has become clearer more recently that it's very likely that he did not view the ISAF Agreement - the agreement that Jeff Martin signed.)

 

Stating that Heini and Jeff's statements were false was something I did not do lightly. For three years IPLore has been attempting to misdirect readers away from tough questions about the ILCA. Thank you IPLore for providing me all the motivation I need. I have the moral fibre to ask tough questions - and to call it when IPLore lies. Am still enormously fucked off at the person who writes anonymously under the name IPLore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Tiller Fella. The Class officers are generally good folks whose actions generally are intended to best serve the organization

 

I wrote generally as my opinion is based upon at least a bit of personal aquaintance with almost every officer and employee. They are good folks who are neither willing to harm the organization for which they volunteer nor from which their pay checks come.

 

 

Thanks Gouvernail.

 

My endorsement of the actions of the class officers who were involved in the response to Bruce Kirby's attack on the Laser Class does not, of course, extend to the actions of the class officers who were involved some years earlier in the disgraceful ouster of the best Executive Secretary the North American Class has ever seen. Those officers were pestilent, traitorous, cow-hearted, yeasty codpieces. They were salty pox-faced krakens, and blackspotted nattering wretches. There is more fire in a small dead fish than in their slimy, slobbering, scummy bags of bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response to your seven posts made it clear where and how you were misquoting me IPLore.

 

 

No it did not. I can reference every one of your quotes that I used to the exact post # in this thread. You have not pointed to a single post where I misquoted you.

 

Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann asked the membership to vote yes to the Fundamental Rule change - that is solicitation. I am satisfied that the voting form included false statements, which ILCA members were asked to consider as justification to vote yes.

 

 

and yet you have not sustained or shown one false statement, let alone a statement designed to misguide the members in their voting.

 

Stating that Heini and Jeff's statements were false is something I did not do lightly.

 

 

You may live to regret that line. It removes an important possible defense from Libel. You cannot claim it was a mistake, a jest or an opinion. Good Luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with Tiller Fella. The Class officers are generally good folks whose actions generally are intended to best serve the organization

 

I wrote generally as my opinion is based upon at least a bit of personal aquaintance with almost every officer and employee. They are good folks who are neither willing to harm the organization for which they volunteer nor from which their pay checks come.

 

 

Thanks Gouvernail.

 

My endorsement of the actions and motivations of the class officers who were involved in the response to Bruce Kirby's attack on the Laser Class does not, of course, extend to the actions of the class officers who were involved some years earlier in the disgraceful ouster of the best Executive Secretary the North American Class has ever seen. Those officers were pestilent, traitorous, cow-hearted, yeasty codpieces. They were salty pox-faced krakens, and blackspotted nattering wretches. There is more fire in a small dead fish than in their slimy, slobbering, scummy bags of bones.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with Tiller Fella. The Class officers are generally good folks whose actions generally are intended to best serve the organization

 

I wrote generally as my opinion is based upon at least a bit of personal aquaintance with almost every officer and employee. They are good folks who are neither willing to harm the organization for which they volunteer nor from which their pay checks come.

 

 

Thanks Gouvernail.

 

My endorsement of the actions of the class officers who were involved in the response to Bruce Kirby's attack on the Laser Class does not, of course, extend to the actions of the class officers who were involved some years earlier in the disgraceful ouster of the best Executive Secretary the North American Class has ever seen. Those officers were pestilent, traitorous, cow-hearted, yeasty codpieces. They were salty pox-faced krakens, and blackspotted nattering wretches. There is more fire in a small dead fish than in their slimy, slobbering, scummy bags of bones.

 

 

Hear Hear!

 

 

(and I doubt that Gantt can understand why Tiller's post and my endorsement of his post do NOT constitute libel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who mentions libel on S.A. should get the immediate ban-hammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record ...

 

ILCA stated: ‘… a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. … The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired….’

 

Who were these lawyers that made this very basic mistake in informing the ILCA the the Kirby design patents (which never existed) "had in fact expired"? If these attorneys were paid for this horribly wrong legal opinion, I hope the ILCA got a refund of their legal fees. In any case, they caused the ILCA to make a misleading statement. Not a false statement unless there actually were no lawyers that informed them. If there were no lawyers and there is no legal opinion in the ILCA files (something I would hope Kirby has already received a copy of in discovery), then the ILCA would be looking at fraudulent misrepresentation which wouldn't be too cool. Some have ventured a guess that perhaps the ILCA did not actually engage lawyers for a legal opinion and simply called a friend who was a lawyer and asked for some free legal advice ... and they got what they paid for. The statement was misleading and did factor into people's decisions. Once it was discovered to be false, the ILCA should have taken some action to undo the damage it caused.

 

Also, just for the record, it took all of 10 seconds to search and find the copyright for the drawing of the Laser. Doesn't equate to design rights but it is a copyright of the drawing of the Laser (link below). It wasn't filed until 1994 but my recollection is that copyrights don't have to be filed to exist, only to be enforced. Also, seem to recall expiration term is something like life of owner plus 75 years (but the laws may have changed since I studied copyrights).

 

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=bruce%20kirby&Search%5FCode=NALL&CNT=25&PID=MVIsCQUlgf4i1Mo-LENqTDkd_U&SEQ=20160626223608&SID=2

 

Just to be clear, the ILCA's publication of the misleading statement has implications:

 

Civil Jury Instructions from the State of Connecticut regarding DEFAMATION:
A defamatory statement is a false communication that tends to harm the reputation of another; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held; to deter third persons from associating or dealing with (him/her); or to excite adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against (him/her).
To establish a case of defamation, the plaintiff must prove the following:
1. the defendant published a defamatory statement to a third person;
2. the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff to a third person; and
3. the plaintiff's reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement.

I believe there is a 2 year statute of limitations but an argument could be made that the clock is reset every time it is republished. So, please keep republishing the ILCA's statements to keep Kirby's rights alive.

 

I hadn't been to this forum in months and didn't realize things had gotten so ugly. Life is too short for this crap. Go sailing. We now have a foiling Laser. Can't wait to go flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How IPLore lied

IPLore conveniently omits the post which is explicit in how he lied. The summary is that IPLore says "does not say that he had "no knowledge" of the builders contracts" - when in fact I said "no knowledge of the content of the builder’s agreement" to SM123 with direct reference to Heini stating: "... ILCA is not a party to this contract and does not even know its content...". I cited and provided a reference several times to where Hieni said this, which was in the Dec 2011 Laser World, after the vote. I had written previously that IPLore had made this 'error' - he did it again, even more explicitly. There is no avoiding that IPLore is lying about what I said.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

Are the 2011 ILCA statements true or false?

IPLore puts forward the notion that the statements I claim to be false are true. The original statements can be found here: http://www.laserinternational.org/info/2011rulechangesvotingended23rdseptember2011

 

Patents

ILCA statement: "We also took legal advice. The above rule changes were deemed the only possible solution in order to promote the uninterrupted supply of class legal Laser boats and to maintain ILCA in its current set-up. The lawyers also informed us that the Kirby design patents had in fact expired."

 

IPLore wrote:

2. Kirby's Intellectual Property rights had expired.

Kirby had claimed in 1983 that he had copyrighted the design. This is warranted on the ISAF agreement. I personally suspect it is unlikely that Bruce registered any intellectual property rights on the design of a boat pre 1983. If he did it would be more likely that he filed a patent. His latest statements suggest that he did neither. Nevertheless the ILCA lawyers took the safe route They did not want to risk saying BK had never patented or copyrighted the design....they probably simply did not know that with any confidence.

Nevertheless they could say with complete confidence that any patent (last longer than design copyright) had expired.

Can you imagine the ramifications if the Class said he had no patents...and it turned out that he did.....even if they had expired.

The ILCA statement explicitly says "the Kirby design patents had in fact expired." It refers to actual patents. Which. Have. Expired. There were no patents for the one design Laser sailboat aka Kirby's sailboat. Jeff and Heini might have been just restating what they were told - apparently the legal advisers made the original statement - however never the less, this statement can only be true if the actual patents referred to existed.
I am satisfied that the above ILCA statement is false.
ILCA is a party to Kirby Agreements
ILCA Statement: "In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements."
IPLore wrote:

1. The ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

Specifically, at the time of the vote, the contract at issue was the builders contract between LPE and Bruce Kirby Inc.

(i) They are not party to the contract. The contract clearly states who are the parties to the contract and ILCA is not a party. Referencing another contract or document does not make ILCA a party to the builders contract. If the builder and BKI had decided to incorporate an article from Tillerman's proper course blog, it would not make Tillerman a party to the contract.

(ii) FWIW, Gantt's statement that the Builders contracts "depend" on the 1983 ISAF agreement is also misguided. The contract commits the parties to seek to maintain international status but if the Laser had lost its international status, the contracts would still be valid. (In BK's favor...his builder contracts are not terminated solely because ISAF terminated the ISAF agreement with Kirby)

Bottom line...the ILCA was not party to the builders contract.

With the above, IPLore shows a weak understanding of the what "party" means in contract law, also a just as weak understanding of what a 'dependant contract' is.
Here is the exact clause which makes the Builder's License dependent on the ISAF Agreements:
"9.2 Licensee agrees to comply with and be bound by each of the terms and conditions of the IYRU Agreement to the same extent as if the Licensee was a party thereto."
This can be found in the builder's lisence on page 111 of the following PDF: https://www.docdroid.net/J1xCef9/kirby-first-amended-complaint-final1-with-appendices.pdf.html
Clause 9.2 above depends on the ISAF Agreement to make sense both legally and logically. The Builder's License Agreement is dependent on the ISAF Agreement.
Also for IPLore to be right, we must also believe his narrow definition of party to only mean signatory.
In law, the definition is far broader, with the term party referring to a recipient of a benefit of a contract or having gained certain rights or privileges - and there are additional legal uses.
Here's a clause from the ISAF Agreement:
13.2 In consideration of the services to be performed by the Association as herein set forth, there shall be paid to the Association by each Builder manufacturing the Laser class boat a fee of such amount as is established from time to time with the approval of the Association as such Builder and the said fee shall be at least equal to the Association's International subscription prevailing at the time. Such payments shall be computed monthly. Payment of all sums due shall be made by the Builder within 30 days from the end of the month with respect to all Laser class boats sold or otherwise disposed of during such month.
It's a good clause to cite as it shows a direct relationship between the builders and the ILCA because of the builder's contract and the ISAF Agreement. The above clause refers to services performed by the ILCA to the builders, and it is aligned with another clause where builders are required to furnish a report to the ILCA. The two agreements bind the builders and the ILCA together in every way a single contract would as if they were signitories.
Also included:
  • The ILCA is a beneficiary of the builder's license agreements, because it requires builder's to make payments to the ILCA.
  • The ILCA has the right under the Builder's License Agreements to conduct inspections at builder's premises.
  • The builder's have obligations to the ILCA, for example are required to furnish reports to the ILCA.

On top of that, we know that there are agreements between Kirby and PSA and PSJ - which were current as of the end of 2011.

 

The ILCA said in 2011: "The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements." In consideration to "any", the agreements with PSA and PSJ must be included.

 

Further, practical aspects of these contracts (eg: payments) were administered on behalf of the ILCA by Jeff Martin continuously from the time he signed the ISAF Agreement, until the above statements were made in 2011.

 

I am satisfied that the above ILCA statement is false.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

Why bother talking about this?

 

The fundamental rule change was in part based on these incorrect understandings put forward by Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann in 2011.

 

I am now am very satisfied that the ILCA made false statements when Jeff and Heini solicited votes to change the fundamental rule.

 

At this point, we don't need to discuss why, just simply acknowledge that false statements were made.

 

These findings may expand options for the ILCA in a positive way - options that may no longer be limited to waiting for a court's ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiller fella's comments were fun to read but I have long since decided the friendships with Tracy and Ryan and others are way more important than whether we had a big misunderstanding a dozen years ago.

None of us did the right things to best serve the game. None of us knew how

 

Nobody else did either

 

I hope someday we have another enthusiastic supportive builder and a fanatic class secretary who can team up and build a huge membership in a fantastic one design singlehanded sailing fleet.

 

Efforts spent on shit like this lawsuit don't help make huge fleets happen.

+1000

 

Moving forward is good. Shit thing is, sometimes we have to look backwards to move forward.

 

If the legal action is a straitjacket for the ILCA in any way, then let's find that loose thread and unravel it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm on the water for a bit and you guys filled up another page and ended the Bieber lovefest. Behave y'all or I will bring him back. And good grief on the libel thing. While I don't agree or condone Canntt comments one of the other guys here that makes me laugh the most has posted way worst sh*t about class officers for years and years. This place and especially this thread is pretty much just a running joke with occasional useful content.

 

IPL - you do realize that you are arguing with folks that are just here to argue, right. Remember that thing about wrestling with pigs... it ends with them liking it...

 

I bet you could count on your fingers the number of folks regularly posting on this thread that either have raced a Laser more than 20 days last year or are class members. I am guessing its only 2 here that could claim both. Many folks like JimC and SimonN are not only not class members; they don't even race Lasers. Most have never dealt with IP issues and react to misinformation or misunderstand what is in the lay press or talked about over rum drinks at a fleet party. Nothing wrong with that; they like to troll and certainly everyone has a right to an opinion no matter how misguided but I think you are taking this place too seriously IPL. You really think Canntt or those just here to argue will ever care about the truth or that you will convince him/them?! What any of them think does not matter.

 

Gouv posted something a while back that was short and sweet and sums it up (apologies if I got it wrong Gouv):

 

* The class just wants to buy boats built to a standard they own and control and to be out of the middle of any IP rights/royalty dispute between builders and designer/rights holders.

 

* The designer just wants to make whatever money he is entitled to make.

 

* The builder just wants to build and sell boats to a class owned standard, called the trademarked name they own (Laser) without overpaying for rights if they don't have to.

 

All above are reasonable things that each party should reasonably pursue to the best of their ability and though any and all legal means.

 

* The court will decide if anyone above overstepped their legal bounds.

 

And this thread will just go round and round (I had to get my kids help for a Bieber like reference here):

 

 

Sorry TM, I could not help myself. I could have gone w Ratt but its not not much of a step up...

 

 

Cheers all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiller fella's comments were fun to read but I have long since decided the friendships with Tracy and Ryan and others are way more important than whether we had a big misunderstanding a dozen years ago.

None of us did the right things to best serve the game. None of us knew how

 

Nobody else did either

 

I hope someday we have another enthusiastic supportive builder and a fanatic class secretary who can team up and build a huge membership in a fantastic one design singlehanded sailing fleet.

 

Efforts spent on shit like this lawsuit don't help make huge fleets happen.

 

LOL, Gouv did one of his massive back-post deletions again. How will we ever win longest thread if he keep deleting posts! You gotta quote him so the classics can live on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I hope someday we have another enthusiastic supportive builder and a fanatic class secretary who can team up and build a huge membership in a fantastic one design singlehanded sailing fleet.

 

Efforts spent on shit like this lawsuit don't help make huge fleets happen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv - I think you tied or beat TM in that round and crushed me for sure. Old time country music is a weakness for me. You can decide for yourself which way I mean that. :lol:

 

And hey, did they record that before or after Kirby drew the Laser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And hey, did they record that before or after Kirby drew the Laser?

 

 

 

Let's Get Together" by The Kingston Trio was released on June 1, 1964, when the Kirby Sailboat wasn't even a twinkle in Uncle Bruce's eye.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce Kirby says that he made the first sketch of the Laser on a piece of yellow legal paper during a telephone conversation with Ian Bruce in October 1969.

 

The #1 hit single in the USA in the second half of October 1969 was "I Can't Get Next To You" by the Temptations.

 

Sounds like a pretty good theme song for Kirby and Rastegar today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who is still paying any attention to Gantt

 

He is 100% incorrect in claiming that the ILCA is a party to the builders contract between Kirby and the builders.

 

In his latest post as he thrashes around trying to justify his claim, Gantt is confusing the requirement and definition of a "party to a contract" with the term "third party beneficiary" to a contract.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum up my view on the Class's decision to change the class rule:

 

1. The Class stated that the primary reason to change the class rule was to preserve the supply of boats and parts to their members. By that measure the Class has succeeded. Europeans continue to have boats and parts throughout the dispute.

 

2. The rule change did not and does not affect the contractual obligations of the various commercial parties under the builders agreements. They have had various opportunities to resolve their disputes regarding royalties, territories and termination notices. If they fail to resolve those complex disputes among themselves, then the court will resolve them.

 

 

Adding to my summary:

 

The Class Association was faced with a threat to the supply of boats and parts to their members. Their only route to avoiding this threat was to change the fundamental rule.

 

1. The threat was real.

2. Nobody on this thread has proposed an alternative that would not have involved changing the fundamental rule

3. The Class delayed implementing the rule change to give the commercial parties time to come to an agreement which would ensure the continued supply of boats. It never happened, so the Class implemented the rule.

4. As stated above the class rule did not remove the contractual obligations of any of the commercial parties.

 

The rule amendment has been passed. It will never get reinstated. That train has not only left the station but the tracks got pulled up and turned into a bike path!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has commented on my settlement suggestion.

 

The Class (via a class rule and bylaw) imposes a 2% fee per boat on builders.

That fee is divided 1% to the ILCA to be used promoting the growth of the class (rehire Gouv?? in a strictly promotional role??)

1% to Bruce Kirby until 2025 (which I believe is when the contract expired)

 

All parties cease litigation.

 

Class builders can only be changed with the approval of an ILCA builders' committee and ISAF. Bruce Kirby sits as a non-voting member of the builders committee.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who is still paying any attention to Gantt

 

He is 100% incorrect in claiming that the ILCA is a party to the builders contract between Kirby and the builders.

 

In his latest post as he thrashes around trying to justify his claim, Gantt is confusing the requirement and definition of a "party to a contract" with the term "third party beneficiary" to a contract.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

 

I am just ignoring him.

 

He has nothing new to say.

 

Nothing that makes any sense anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who is still paying any attention to Gantt

 

He is 100% incorrect in claiming that the ILCA is a party to the builders contract between Kirby and the builders.

 

In his latest post as he thrashes around trying to justify his claim, Gantt is confusing the requirement and definition of a "party to a contract" with the term "third party beneficiary" to a contract.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

OK, I didn't see that coming from this guy! Dang we have a contender on our hands! No way can the last post be a Linda Ronstadt video (come on TM, you have fallen to my level).

 

Neurotic Outsiders - Always wrong!

 

You win IPLure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has commented on my settlement suggestion.

 

The Class (via a class rule and bylaw) imposes a 2% fee per boat on builders.

That fee is divided 1% to the ILCA to be used promoting the growth of the class (rehire Gouv?? in a strictly promotional role??)

1% to Bruce Kirby until 2025 (which I believe is when the contract expired)

 

All parties cease litigation.

 

Class builders can only be changed with the approval of an ILCA builders' committee and ISAF. Bruce Kirby sits as a non-voting member of the builders committee.

 

Thoughts?

I did when you first posted it but the thread canntt get away from he who shall not be mentioned' fascination with the class vote. Alot also depends on how much Bruce was paid by PSA/GS and if he still has (and how much of) the cash as you indicated (as well as apparently having the rights back). I was going to look for a reference to that but was/am lazy. Where are you getting that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his latest post as he thrashes around trying to justify his claim, Gantt is confusing the requirement and definition of a "party to a contract" with the term "third party beneficiary" to a contract.

 

As stated above, the ILCA is a beneficiary of the builder's license agreements, additionally the ILCA have rights (eg. inspections) and the builders have obligations to the ILCA (eg payments, reports).

 

The description "third party beneficiary" does not fully describe the ILCA's direct relationship with builders as a result of the builders license agreement and the ISAF agreement.

 

Additionally, the statement about patents is false.

 

Again, this does not talk in any way about intentions of Jeff Martin or Heini Wellmann whose names appear under these false statements, it just means that the statements were false.

 

______________________________________________________________

 

It does not matter who IPLore is, what matters is that IPLore has been exposed as a troll.

 

Whoever IPLore is, he/she does not want the ILCA Membership or the general Laser community to know that the ILCA made false statements to solicit votes in 2011. (I'm not the only one who finds that interesting; have had a small increase in offline communications over the last week or so).

 

That's because the implications are far more significant than repealing the rule change, and IPLore knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gouv, you gotta do better than that!

 

I mean Canntt is determined to load 16 tons of crap into this thread, even though all he will get "is another day older and deeper in debt..."

 

 

Step it up man! You gotta represent Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gantt says IPLore's a big bad troll - fol-de-rol!

 

Now lookie here son. We put up with Canntt's endless lies and fascination with the vote rather than the case, Gouv's never ending often later deleted rants, IPL's who's got the cash posts, my crappy music selections, and even Foredeck Shuffle's love of all things Bieber...

 

But don't ever mess with the goat (even w pink hair curlers) and the place I sail my Laser...

 

 

FEAR THE GOAT!!

 

14 in a row (but rooting for Army this year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The importance of the proposed fundamental rule change

 

We have established that there are at least two false statements in the ILCA's 2011 statement which solicited votes to pass the fundamental rule change.

 

Thanks to Tiller Man back in 2011, we also know there were differences between the wording of the online version and the printed version. That lack of attention to detail made me wonder - was there anything else wrong with the proposed rule change?

 

I decided to take a look.

 

One of the more important findings, is that World Sailing has very specific requirements for the class recognized as having international status. I found the following World Sailing requirement very relevant:

 

10.3 There shall be an executed agreement between World Sailing Limited., the Class/Owners Association and where relevant the Trademark, Trade Name and the Copyright Owner. This agreement shall include at a minimum the following matters:

 

( a ) define, if any, the ownership of the Copyright, Trade Name and Trademark and establish the rights granted and the responsibilities, obligations and restrictions that apply to the use of such rights generally and among the parties to the agreement;

 

( b ) where a licensed builder system is to be adopted, establish the procedure for granting licences and the control of the licensed builders;

 

( c ) agree on the amount of the World Sailing fee for each boat which is based on 0.4% on the first £20,000 then 0.2% on the next £70,000 and 0.1% on the amount above £90,000 of the average retail price of a complete new boat without sails as a guideline for negotiation;

 

( d ) define the method of issuing and using World Sailing plaques, if any, Sail numbers, Measurement forms, Measurement certificates, changes to class rules and any other documentation affecting the ownership and the use of the boat; and

 

( e ) provide that the Class organization and members of the class shall act in accordance with the World Sailing Constitution, Rules and Regulations.

 

 

- ref. page 50 of the following PDF: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2016RegulationsJune2016-[20887].pdf

 

According to the above, for the Laser sailboat to have international status, it is REQUIRED to have certain agreements.

 

The Laser sailboat meets the above requirements with the following two agreements:

  • The ISAF Agreement
  • Kirby's builders license agreements

Let's return to the proposed fundamental rule change document: http://www.laserinternational.org/info/2011rulechangesvotingended23rdseptember2011

In addition, a builder also needs a building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc. This provision is mostly historical. The rule was instituted at a time when Bruce Kirby held certain design rights. The ILCA is not a party to any of these “Kirby” agreements.

 

As far as I know, there is no replacement to the ISAF Agreement. It is still current - or the Laser sailboat is no longer an International Class.

 

The ISAF Agreement describes a license system referred to in clause 10 ( b ) above.

 

Again, from Jeff Martin and Heini Wellmann in 2011:

 

Therefore, we are proposing to change the rule to eliminate the “building agreement from Bruce Kirby or Bruce Kirby Inc” requirement. Manufacturers who have trademark rights and who build in strict adherence to the ILCA Rules and to the Construction Manual, which is controlled by ILCA, will continue to have the right to build Class legal boats.

 

 

 

That proposed rule change still has some very big problems.

 

Is the ILCA really suggesting that it no longer complies with World Sailing requirements?

 

Bottom line is that:

  • World Sailing still requires the ISAF Agreement to exist (or a replacement) for the Laser to be recognized as having international status.
  • The ISAF Agreement describes a licensing system where Bruce Kirby / BKI grants licenses for the Laser sailboat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The importance of the proposed fundamental rule change

 

We have established that there are at least two false statements in the ILCA's 2011 statement which solicited votes to pass the fundamental rule change.

 

Thanks to Tiller Man back in 2011, we also know there were differences between the wording of the online version and the printed version. That lack of attention to detail made me wonder - was there anything else wrong with the proposed rule change?

 

 

Thanks for the recognition Gantt. Your memory is a lot better than mine!

 

Attention to detail has always been one of my most annoying characteristics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey at least he figured out its a rule not a "law." But he still does not understand the other simple stuff like the difference between "proposed" (rule change) and implemented, a jetski and a quad (gotta go back a ways for that one), voting rights of members vs non-members (gotta go way back for that one), and truth from fiction (OK that you cann find in most all of his posts)... but he is helping us get to another new page soon and on rare occasion he posts good music!

 

I do wish he would turn his attention to the case and what Kirby is actually claiming. If he cann get this much wrong about the class action around the rule, cann you imagine what he could do with the actual case and actual Kirby claims. We could break 100 pages easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey at least he figured out its a rule not a "law." But he still does not understand the other simple stuff like the difference between "proposed" (rule change) and implemented, a jetski and a quad (gotta go back a ways for that one), voting rights of members vs non-members (gotta go way back for that one), and truth from fiction (OK that you cann find in most all of his posts)... but he is helping us get to another new page soon and on rare occasion he posts good music!

 

I do wish he would turn his attention to the case and what Kirby is actually claiming. If he cann get this much wrong about the class action around the rule, cann you imagine what he could do with the actual case and actual Kirby claims. We could break 100 pages easy.

 

Difference between a jet-ski and a quad?

 

I must have missed that gem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey at least he figured out its a rule not a "law." But he still does not understand the other simple stuff like the difference between "proposed" (rule change) and implemented, a jetski and a quad (gotta go back a ways for that one), voting rights of members vs non-members (gotta go way back for that one), and truth from fiction (OK that you cann find in most all of his posts)... but he is helping us get to another new page soon and on rare occasion he posts good music!

 

I do wish he would turn his attention to the case and what Kirby is actually claiming. If he cann get this much wrong about the class action around the rule, cann you imagine what he could do with the actual case and actual Kirby claims. We could break 100 pages easy.

 

Difference between a jet-ski and a quad?

 

I must have missed that gem.

 

Yea, post 3589. Just kinda laughed as its typical of most everything he posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey at least he figured out its a rule not a "law." But he still does not understand the other simple stuff like the difference between "proposed" (rule change) and implemented, a jetski and a quad (gotta go back a ways for that one), voting rights of members vs non-members (gotta go way back for that one), and truth from fiction (OK that you cann find in most all of his posts)... but he is helping us get to another new page soon and on rare occasion he posts good music!

 

I do wish he would turn his attention to the case and what Kirby is actually claiming. If he cann get this much wrong about the class action around the rule, cann you imagine what he could do with the actual case and actual Kirby claims. We could break 100 pages easy.

 

Difference between a jet-ski and a quad?

 

I must have missed that gem.

 

Yea, post 3589. Just kinda laughed as its typical of most everything he posts.

 

 

 

Oh yeah. I was too busy laughing at his accusation that I invented a "fantasy quote" to take much notice of all his other errors in that post.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Old time country music is a weakness for me. I mean that.

 

?

 

Gouv..........with that one post you may have succeeded where all others have failed and driven everyone away from the thread.

 

Tiller and Wes's can only still be here because they haven't opened the video. I made it as far as the little dog leaping into the kids lap and then ........I left the room screaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Old time country music is a weakness for me. I mean that.

 

?

 

Gouv..........with that one post you may have succeeded where all others have failed and driven everyone away from the thread.

 

Tiller and Wes's can only still be here because they haven't opened the video. I made it as far as the little dog leaping into the kids lap and then ........I left the room screaming.

 

 

 

He lost me at "seldom is heard a discouraging word."

 

That didn't sound consistent with the spirit of Sailing Anarchy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't scare him away. This thread is my morning coffee and its been more than 24 hours since he last posted.

 

Baby come back, you can blame it all on me. I was wrong and I just canntt live without you.

 

 

I'll even change my class vote... just come back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Wess. We shouldn't make fun of him too much. I do need a fix of Gantt at least once a week.

 

Baby please don't go... you know I love you so.

 

I'll even change my class vote... just please don't go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really guys. You should GENERALly MANAGE your ILCA posts with more appropriate music.

 

https://g.co/kgs/I8WMeP

 

Its obvious you used to be a Laser Class volunteer by your numerous false statements!

1. You don't know for sure that I am a guy.

2. It wasn't all music, one post was a comedy routine. So when you said all of the content was inappropriate music, that was clearly a false statement.

3. You are a beneficiary of Laser sailing, which makes you a party to the 1896 IYRU agreement, so when you said earlier "None of us knew how"......that verifies that you were making a false statement in order to solicit my vote, even though I cant vote because I am not a member. If I was a member and if you had made that statement before the vote , even though you made the statement after the vote was over, it was still a false statement and central to the core of the fundamental rule change.

 

Finally, you are a troll. A troll is someone who contradicts my fantasy logic with inconvenient facts. So dont bother trying to correct me. I am right, not wrong.

 

For those who are missing the endearing logic of your fellow .....umm species.....I hope this keeps you satiated until you get more of the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Its obvious you used to be a Laser Class volunteer by your numerous false statements!

1. You don't know for sure that I am a guy.

2. It wasn't all music, one post was a comedy routine. So when you said all of the content was inappropriate music, that was clearly a false statement.

3. You are a beneficiary of Laser sailing, which makes you a party to the 1896 IYRU agreement, so when you said earlier "None of us knew how"......that verifies that you were making a false statement in order to solicit my vote, even though I cant vote because I am not a member. If I was a member and if you had made that statement before the vote , even though you made the statement after the vote was over, it was still a false statement and central to the core of the fundamental rule change.

 

Finally, you are a troll. A troll is someone who contradicts my fantasy logic with inconvenient facts. So dont bother trying to correct me. I am right, not wrong.

 

 

 

Brilliant! Are you sure you aren't one of Gantt's granddaughters?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites