Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MR.CLEAN

ADM Suit Moves Forward

Recommended Posts

I was hoping this would go to trail so that the rock the cockroach was hiding under would be turned over.

 

Instead were going to be treated to MSP leaking drivel from Fitzcrazycunt.

 

What's interesting is that she hasn't posted an "ADM Declares Victory" article yet on her site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was hoping this would go to trail so that the rock the cockroach was hiding under would be turned over.

 

Instead were going to be treated to MSP leaking drivel from Fitzcrazycunt.

 

What's interesting is that she hasn't posted an "ADM Declares Victory" article yet on her site.

 

Hard to declare victory when you argue with the judge and he rips you a new ass hole;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

But of course MSP characterizes the hearing as Bowman taking a beating until he realizes the transcripts are published information :lol:

 

Political troll and dumbass that he is :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo

 

exactly what would ADM actually have had to $pend out of pocket

 

 

Could they have just filed everything staying under $10,000 using all standard form filled papers ??

 

A shake down doesn't have to have merit - Just a roll of the dice !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explaining the Challenger of Record Concept


Published on July 30, 2014 by shoplifter


Interest in the America’s Cup grew rapidly during the 1960’s, with multiple foreign clubs expressing their desire to challenge. A casual agreement on who might challenge, and in what order, was adopted but proved to be awkward in practice, so when multiple challenges were received for 1970, rather than select one yacht club to compete as challenger in the match, by mutual agreement it was established that several prospective challenger candidates could compete against each other for the right to sail in the America’s Cup match against the Defender.


This was the first time that candidates from multiple countries vied against each other on the water for the chance to challenge. It was hoped that having several challenger candidate race in a competitive selection process would help improve challenger performance, much as the New York YC’s standard practice of defender trials had done historically.


The Challenger of Record (COR) arrangement, as it has come to be termed, allows one foreign YC to challenge (becoming the initial COR), that Club agreeing to the terms of the match with the defender and subsequently allowing the winner of the challenger selection series to step into the place of the COR. Prior to 1983, the challengers conducted the challenger selection regatta under their own management and at their own cost. Starting in 1983, Louis Vuitton sponsored the challenger selection, awarding the Louis Vuitton Cup to the ultimately selected challenger. Technically, the eventual winner of the challenger selection process becomes the final Challenger of Record, and win or lose in the match, goes down in history as the Challenger for that America’s Cup match.


Since 1970 there have been 13 matches with multiple challengers, with 12 teams serving as the initial COR. Including the upcoming 35th Defense of the America’s Cup scheduled for 2017, the initial COR has resigned four times; three times also withdrawing from competition (1974, 2013, and 2017); one time remaining a competitor (1992).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks MSP.

FF, your interpretation is possible but not plausible. Imagine how it costed Larry do defend ADM mission, they had to have serious reasons to do it and a few millions were surely easier to give than this public declaration.

 

So what were they afraid of ? remember the judge finding very strange that GGYC would not allow any other team to compete, had ADM won in court, any other US team could have asked to compete in order to race under GGYC colors. Problem, that is not possible with the present protocol, consequence: such a judgement would have just put AC35 in limbo. Whatever the chance, they could hardly take it. A few millions and helping ADM was a much cheaper price.At the end I don't ADM backers had to spend a dime to pay their lawyers, Larry did probably. Ironic.

 

You may not agree with my hypothesis, however you will have to admit that the one (TE?) who refused ADM was an idiot, if he had told them "bring your boat", GGYC would not have had to go through all this mess.

 

Wrong decision or the right decision taken on false premisses (that ADM was broke), which is the same at the end.

Finally, agreed. In hindsight, they certainly should have handled it differently. I would not have accepted them by saying "bring a boat". That is what ADM & backer wanted. They didn't care about building a boat or racing. They wanted to be in the competitor meetings to stir up shit and report out for maximum shitslinging effect.

 

What TE should have done is take their fees, and formally reject them for not meeting their conditions. Essentially they needed to document their 'good faith' in a more professional way.

 

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Agreed that for both parties what they paid for their lawyers was peanuts, but ironic if Larry had to pay for ADM lawyers....

We also agree it should have been handled differently but not on the solution.

 

Your assumption is most probably wrong though, first we don't know their objective, second, even if that was right they could not do much alone in the forum. Again the easy solution was "come and race with us".

 

Finally, yes, we agree that insight is a wonderful talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks MSP.

FF, your interpretation is possible but not plausible. Imagine how it costed Larry do defend ADM mission, they had to have serious reasons to do it and a few millions were surely easier to give than this public declaration.

 

So what were they afraid of ? remember the judge finding very strange that GGYC would not allow any other team to compete, had ADM won in court, any other US team could have asked to compete in order to race under GGYC colors. Problem, that is not possible with the present protocol, consequence: such a judgement would have just put AC35 in limbo. Whatever the chance, they could hardly take it. A few millions and helping ADM was a much cheaper price.At the end I don't ADM backers had to spend a dime to pay their lawyers, Larry did probably. Ironic.

 

You may not agree with my hypothesis, however you will have to admit that the one (TE?) who refused ADM was an idiot, if he had told them "bring your boat", GGYC would not have had to go through all this mess.

 

Wrong decision or the right decision taken on false premisses (that ADM was broke), which is the same at the end.

Finally, agreed. In hindsight, they certainly should have handled it differently. I would not have accepted them by saying "bring a boat". That is what ADM & backer wanted. They didn't care about building a boat or racing. They wanted to be in the competitor meetings to stir up shit and report out for maximum shitslinging effect.

 

What TE should have done is take their fees, and formally reject them for not meeting their conditions. Essentially they needed to document their 'good faith' in a more professional way.

 

Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Agreed that for both parties what they paid for their lawyers was peanuts, but ironic if Larry had to pay for ADM lawyers....

We also agree it should have been handled differently but not on the solution.

 

Your assumption is most probably wrong though, first we don't know their objective, second, even if that was right they could not do much alone in the forum. Again the easy solution was "come and race with us".

 

Finally, yes, we agree that insight is a wonderful talent.

While trivial amounts to both, I would be stunned if Larry paid their fees.

 

Larry was the only player in a position where he couldn't back down and say "OK lets settle". Why? Because that would go agains the one thing we know he seeks more than anything: Victory - whatever the game. ADM and its backer on the other hand, could easily tire of the game as they were not getting their intended smear on LE. So why continue?

 

Second, you say we don't know their objective. Here, I think you are wrong. It was a shakedown, or a PR attack. In either case, ADM & Co. was trying to harm GGYC/LE/AC. If you know that, or strongly suspect it, letting them in as competitors requires you to be stupid. Easy solution of "come race" is a stupid solution. It would be like Apple subcontracting OS work to Microsoft. The work might get done, but do you really think they wouldn't used information garnered to further their personal objectives? Not to mention that the "come race" option had financial cost, time cost, and physical risk associated with it.

 

Remember how much extra time OR seemed to have as the match approached. NONE. A sham defender series would only have burned more time they didn't have... as ADM wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting aspect of your responses to TC is one of well reasoned logic vs that of a political troll that hates OTUSA and loves anything that represents a threat, especially a legal one which he consistently supports with reckless abandon regardless of any logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Their lawyers negotiated because it was called a settlement.

 

But that isn't the question. The question is whether there were any concessions by GGYC. We don't know the answer to that one but I truly doubt it beyond the one concession: They allowed them to call it a settlement instead of a withdrawal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BtW ff, sippng a nice Rosé in a Château garden in Southern France, too bad you are not here for the pleasure of the conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To 'settle' for nothing would mean that ADM demanded the NDA. We'll never know, but given the hands, I stand by my assessment.

 

Enjoy the Champagne. I'll do the same in St. Jacut in early sept. If you are still around, I'll share!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in ADM's settlement the defeated, retreating in reverse, backers paid for yet another fun and trivial event in the Life of Larry?

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/larry-ellison-sells-lake-tahoe-property-for-20-35-million-1406729822?mobile=y

 

--

Mr. Ellison assembled the Glenbrook properties over three years. In 2006 he paid $11.7 million for the main house and 1.6 acres, according to public records. He then paid $3.3 million for two additional parcels in 2009.

He had originally intended the three properties to be his primary home at Tahoe. Instead, he got the chance to build a 7.6-acre estate on the north shore of the lake, so he decided to sell the Glenbrook compound, Ms. Fairchild told the Journal in an interview last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Please tell us how you know there is a NDA.

 

and don't quote any crazy injuns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Total bullshit logic. There are lots of reasons why LE would have settled despite while knowing he could win. Only a fool continues to litigate a case any longer than they have to, even if they are in the right. And a settlement doesn't mean that LE has conceded on anything, other than possibly letting ADM walk away with a little dignity left intact. The "settlement" could easily be as little as to agree to the statements that have been issued and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Please tell us how you know there is a NDA.

 

and don't quote any crazy injuns.

 

TC doesn't know shit - he only trolls in every direction at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone assume the backer was Ernesto? I think it would make more sense if had been Dalts or someone from ETNZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Total bullshit logic. There are lots of reasons why LE would have settled despite while knowing he could win. Only a fool continues to litigate a case any longer than they have to, even if they are in the right. And a settlement doesn't mean that LE has conceded on anything, other than possibly letting ADM walk away with a little dignity left intact. The "settlement" could easily be as little as to agree to the statements that have been issued and nothing more.

 

Maybe ADM finally ran out of gas. Maybe EB got tired of the game. Maybe LE is going to fund some sailing activities for minorities so one day they can pose a legitimate defender candidate. Maybe each side got tired of arguing. Maybe he judge got tired of hearing it. Maybe.................................

 

Now we can change this thread to 'ADM suit is Done'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Total bullshit logic. There are lots of reasons why LE would have settled despite while knowing he could win. Only a fool continues to litigate a case any longer than they have to, even if they are in the right. And a settlement doesn't mean that LE has conceded on anything, other than possibly letting ADM walk away with a little dignity left intact. The "settlement" could easily be as little as to agree to the statements that have been issued and nothing more.

Did you figure out the consequences for GGYC if they had lost ?

Do you realize what could have happened to the protocol ?

Do you realize the PR mess if the a black club had won over Larry ?

What was the safe solution ?

You are so short sighted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since ADM were already reduced to asking the court for $1m, the consequences would likely have been below that threshold.

 

It's a very, very far cry from the original fantasy of LE building and paying for 2 AC45s to just give to them, and then doing the same for an AC72....

 

If the ADM lawyers and backer still thought there was any chance in hell of prevailing, well then they wouldn't have beat a retreat and given up.

 

If LE contributed to their original cause then that's fine and well-intentioned but says nothing about who the big loser was in court.

 

ADM lost their silly case, they ran out of options and that big waste of time is over. GGYC was in the right all along, was under no compulsion to prop up ADM.

 

TC, MSP, and LynnFitzG were (huge surprise) wrong about everything all along too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Since ADM were already reduced to asking the court for $1m, the consequences would likely have been below that threshold.

 

 

2) If the ADM lawyers and backer still thought there was any chance in hell of prevailing, well then they wouldn't have beat a retreat and given up.

 

3) If LE contributed to their original cause then that's fine and well-intentioned but says nothing about who the big loser was in court.

 

 

1) correct, but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

2) They got the official backing of their mission and possibly much more, if retreat there was it was for GGYC

3) The smartest PR decision Larry could make after this disastrous operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1) Since ADM were already reduced to asking the court for $1m, the consequences would likely have been below that threshold.

 

 

2) If the ADM lawyers and backer still thought there was any chance in hell of prevailing, well then they wouldn't have beat a retreat and given up.

 

3) If LE contributed to their original cause then that's fine and well-intentioned but says nothing about who the big loser was in court.

 

 

1) correct, but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

2) They got the official backing of their mission and possibly much more, if retreat there was it was for GGYC

3) The smartest PR decision Larry could make after this disastrous decision.

What exactly is disastrous about not letting a team try to defend the Americas Cup that has never entered even an opti regatta? If Kithcart was such a racer why didn't you ever invite him to sail with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ 3) if LE did decide to support an effort with those goals, then after that silliness then for sure nobody associated with ADM will have any say in how that gets set up. Your hero Capt K still gets nothing out of it, even if potential sailing kids might do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-C

 

I have never really considered it before, but there can be only 3 reasons why you post the way you do.

 

1. You don't bother to read everything you post about and therefore post without full knowledge of the facts

2. You are too stupid to understand the facts

3. You are simply a troll.

 

By way of example.

..... but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

There is no way that could happen, because all that ADM was demanding was that their application was fairly reviewed. There was never anything before the court that could be interpreted as deciding whether there as a right to a DSS, not least because under the protocol, GGYC offered to run a DSS for all qualified entries.

 

So are you lazy, stupid or a troll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-C

 

I have never really considered it before, but there can be only 3 reasons why you post the way you do.

 

1. You don't bother to read everything you post about and therefore post without full knowledge of the facts

2. You are too stupid to understand the facts

3. You are simply a troll.

 

By way of example.

..... but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

There is no way that could happen, because all that ADM was demanding was that their application was fairly reviewed. There was never anything before the court that could be interpreted as deciding whether there as a right to a DSS, not least because under the protocol, GGYC offered to run a DSS for all qualified entries.

 

So are you lazy, stupid or a troll?

You really are an idiot Simon. If their application was fairly reviewed and accepted we would have seen a DSS, isn't it ?

Now, in case you would not know, there is no DSS proposed in the AC35 protocol.

Is that hard to understand ? and do you know the interpretation of a court in advance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

T-C

 

I have never really considered it before, but there can be only 3 reasons why you post the way you do.

 

1. You don't bother to read everything you post about and therefore post without full knowledge of the facts

2. You are too stupid to understand the facts

3. You are simply a troll.

 

By way of example.

..... but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

There is no way that could happen, because all that ADM was demanding was that their application was fairly reviewed. There was never anything before the court that could be interpreted as deciding whether there as a right to a DSS, not least because under the protocol, GGYC offered to run a DSS for all qualified entries.

 

So are you lazy, stupid or a troll?

You really are an idiot Simon. If their application was fairly reviewed and accepted we would have seen a DSS, isn't it ?

Is that hard to understand ? and do you know the interpretation of a court in advance ?

 

How about fairly reviewed and rejected as insufficient?

 

Ever consider that it WAS fairly reviewed, because beyond what is on paper is the simple experienced knowledge within the top end of the sport of who has the potential to be even be competitive, let alone beat a team that is fully funded by the 5th richest guy on the planet and staffed by the winners of the immediate past Cup.

 

Maybe if a Bill Koch or Jim Clark had called up and said "hey, I want to race" GGYC would have paid attention, but someone with no visible means of support, with a borrowed entry fee from someone who may not have been exactly mentally stable, with not one shred of real racing experience, you are on glue if you think a "fair review" would have gotten or deserved a different result.

 

Ever stop to consider that maybe Ehman did Lynne F a favor by returning her money, when they probably could have kept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mix of that is a valid explanation, it's a ridiculous mix regardless the relative proportions.

SR, how much are you paid to spend your night and days distributing OR PR material ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any mix of that is a valid explanation, it's a ridiculous mix regardless the relative proportions.

SR, how much are you paid to spend your night and days distributing OR PR material ?
My only AC subject matter fun is commenting on current events. When that includes pointing out rampant idiocy, well that's just part of the entertainment too.

 

The AC is in some ways a silly subject to follow but it's surprisingly rich in the subject matter reach; and is my preferred focus among the various other current events that I follow too.

 

I have absolutely zero interest in pursuing anything PR related, and therefore don't. It's just a reasonable assumption, in its deathly conclusion and by the events that anyone can point to in the lead up, that this ADM lawsuit was all along a completely hopeless loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

T-C

 

I have never really considered it before, but there can be only 3 reasons why you post the way you do.

 

1. You don't bother to read everything you post about and therefore post without full knowledge of the facts

2. You are too stupid to understand the facts

3. You are simply a troll.

 

By way of example.

..... but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

There is no way that could happen, because all that ADM was demanding was that their application was fairly reviewed. There was never anything before the court that could be interpreted as deciding whether there as a right to a DSS, not least because under the protocol, GGYC offered to run a DSS for all qualified entries.

 

So are you lazy, stupid or a troll?

You really are an idiot Simon. If their application was fairly reviewed and accepted we would have seen a DSS, isn't it ?

Now, in case you would not know, there is no DSS proposed in the AC35 protocol.

Is that hard to understand ? and do you know the interpretation of a court in advance ?

So this implies that we can rule out that you don't bother reading everything and leaves us with 2 possibilities, namely you are either stupid or a troll.

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS. Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened. It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

T-C

 

I have never really considered it before, but there can be only 3 reasons why you post the way you do.

 

1. You don't bother to read everything you post about and therefore post without full knowledge of the facts

2. You are too stupid to understand the facts

3. You are simply a troll.

 

By way of example.

..... but it could have set a precedent and been interpretated as a right for a DSS by a court

There is no way that could happen, because all that ADM was demanding was that their application was fairly reviewed. There was never anything before the court that could be interpreted as deciding whether there as a right to a DSS, not least because under the protocol, GGYC offered to run a DSS for all qualified entries.

 

So are you lazy, stupid or a troll?

You really are an idiot Simon. If their application was fairly reviewed and accepted we would have seen a DSS, isn't it ?

Now, in case you would not know, there is no DSS proposed in the AC35 protocol.

Is that hard to understand ? and do you know the interpretation of a court in advance ?

 

You're funny when the truth comes out. First course of action is insults.

 

So if you're such a brilliant legal strategist light bulb, why are you and MSP on the sidelines fabricating your weird theories and not actively employed by a team ?

 

Or can't they afford you ? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

 

This started out as and was reduced to a shake-down as was posted at the very beginning of the law suit, but apparently you missed the obvious. And "one of the best law firms" around didn't research relevant case law (or chose to ignore it) in pursuing the case - the judge rubbed his face in it. Pretty embarrassing after all that. The turning point in the case and any indication of a financial settlement ( big zero) is this;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

And this was after the judge ripped him apart for arguing with him - not too smart but something we've also seen previously in AC33 hearings :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

 

This started out as and was reduced to a shake-down as was posted at the very beginning of the law suit, but apparently you missed the obvious. And "one of the best law firms" around didn't research relevant case law (or chose to ignore it) in pursuing the case - the judge rubbed his face in it. Pretty embarrassing after all that. The turning point in the case and any indication of a financial settlement ( big zero) is this;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

And this was after the judge ripped him apart for arguing with him - not too smart but something we've also seen previously in AC33 hearings :)

 

And another troll starts pretending to be a lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

 

This started out as and was reduced to a shake-down as was posted at the very beginning of the law suit, but apparently you missed the obvious. And "one of the best law firms" around didn't research relevant case law (or chose to ignore it) in pursuing the case - the judge rubbed his face in it. Pretty embarrassing after all that. The turning point in the case and any indication of a financial settlement ( big zero) is this;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

And this was after the judge ripped him apart for arguing with him - not too smart but something we've also seen previously in AC33 hearings :)

 

And another troll starts pretending to be a lawyer

 

The furthest thing from any aspiration I may have. Just enjoying ADM getting hit in the face with a cold fish after pissing off the judge, although you probably are an expert on nuisance suits by now.

 

I must have missed your interpretation of the case - is it stored with the ET video ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

 

This started out as and was reduced to a shake-down as was posted at the very beginning of the law suit, but apparently you missed the obvious. And "one of the best law firms" around didn't research relevant case law (or chose to ignore it) in pursuing the case - the judge rubbed his face in it. Pretty embarrassing after all that. The turning point in the case and any indication of a financial settlement ( big zero) is this;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

And this was after the judge ripped him apart for arguing with him - not too smart but something we've also seen previously in AC33 hearings :)

 

And another troll starts pretending to be a lawyer

 

You mean like the guy you started this thread and actually payed to get through law school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

2 things stand out. ADM only had a case because GHYC offered a DSS. Nowhere in ADM's case did it suggest that the defender was bound to have a DSS.

1)Their case solely revolved around the fact that GGYC offered a DSS and had to review all applicants for that DSS fairly and if they had done so, and ADM was found to have good standing, then, under the protocol, a DSS should have happened.

2)It is unbelievable that you could go from that to consider that any ruling would have bound defenders in the future to have a DSS because

3) the whole basis of the standing of a DSS comes from the protocol. ADM maintained that the protocol formed part of the contract between GGYC and ADM.

 

So you finally realized that it is not about AC34 protocol but the AC35 one ?

 

1) yes

2) if you invest hundreds of millions in race you don't rely on "unbelievable". You may prefer to settle than wait for a decision that can go both way.

3) The protocol is part of the contract of the AC34 protocol, however a US court decision in favour of ADM could have set a precedent. If you read the judge comments you will see how surprised he was that no other teams could race.

 

At the end if you do not realize yet that court testings are at the base of the deed interpretation you are ignorant.

 

A negative decision for GGYC could have just fucked the AC 35 protocol. IMO, that is the main reason why they settled and it was a wise decision.

 

This started out as and was reduced to a shake-down as was posted at the very beginning of the law suit, but apparently you missed the obvious. And "one of the best law firms" around didn't research relevant case law (or chose to ignore it) in pursuing the case - the judge rubbed his face in it. Pretty embarrassing after all that. The turning point in the case and any indication of a financial settlement ( big zero) is this;

 

The court to Kratenstein- " Let me interrupt you. Have you looked at the lawsuits from law students who sued their law schools because they're not getting a job ? - snip - Have you looked at those ?"

 

Kratenstein - "I have not looked at those"

 

Court - "I think you should because it talks a lot about damages in this situation"

 

Kratenstein - "Your honor, I have nothing further"

 

And this was after the judge ripped him apart for arguing with him - not too smart but something we've also seen previously in AC33 hearings :)

 

And another troll starts pretending to be a lawyer

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey TC,

 

Spin that.

ahole3

 

nothing to spin

 

Never stopped you from fabricating BS from nothing before - get your finger stuck under the CAPS LOCK KEY ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hey TC,

 

Spin that.

ahole3

 

nothing to spin

Never stopped you from fabricating BS from nothing before - get your finger stuck under the CAPS LOCK KEY ?.

MSP HAS BROKEN CORPORATIONS FOR BILLION$$$$$ HE SUE EVERYONE HE WIN BIG TIME. except this time his side lost AGAIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't do press so not much is public - even after he's broken all those BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS. He just sneaks up and does his thing, whatever that is :)

 

Word has it that he's still looking for donations of a laser printer, copier and a computer, so he's doing this with his bare hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernesto versus Larry

 

Anyone remember what the current bitch-slap score is?

 

Do you think Ernie has finally had enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would it be if to close this thread out we voted one 'Indian Face' off the forum, huh?

 

Wanna risk it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If larrY was sure to wn he wouldn,t have settled

If no conession there was no need for nda and we agee on the nda

Total bullshit logic. There are lots of reasons why LE would have settled despite while knowing he could win. Only a fool continues to litigate a case any longer than they have to, even if they are in the right. And a settlement doesn't mean that LE has conceded on anything, other than possibly letting ADM walk away with a little dignity left intact. The "settlement" could easily be as little as to agree to the statements that have been issued and nothing more.

 

Maybe ADM finally ran out of gas. Maybe EB got tired of the game. Maybe LE is going to fund some sailing activities for minorities so one day they can pose a legitimate defender candidate. Maybe each side got tired of arguing. Maybe he judge got tired of hearing it. Maybe.................................

 

Now we can change this thread to 'ADM suit is Done'.

 

 

 

Native Americans for all love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you want to register with that site you cannot read the article....not want.

Copy and past what you think is important, or paraphrase... cite your quotes/ comments as needed. Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

--

After three years of legal wrangling, a sailing group in North Carolina and the bearer of the prestigious Americas Cup trophy reached a settlement late last month following court-ordered mediation in New Yorks Commercial Division.

The July 23 settlement between African Diaspora Maritime Corporation and Golden Gate Yacht Club scuttles a dispute prompted by a spurned chance to compete in the 34th Americas Cup, the premier international yacht sailing race.

The case is African Diaspora Maritime Corporation v. Golden Gate Yacht Club, 653419/2011.

ADM, as the non-profit sailing group is referred to in court briefs, aims to promote the visibility of African American competitive sailors and raise awareness of the role of blacks in maritime history. The group submitted an application and the $25,000 fee on March 31, 2011 to compete in the Defender Series against defender Oracle Team USA, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison.

Two weeks later, Golden Gate rejected the application, saying it was not satisfied that ADM would have the resources and experience to have a reasonable chance of winning the Americas Cup Defender Series.

Golden Gate, as holder of the Cup, serves as trustee of the Americas Cup. ADM claimed that the club did not review its application in good faith.

ADMs suit against Golden Gate pit two major law firms against one other McDermott Will & Emery and Boies, Schiller & Flexner in a case that reached the Appellate Division, First Department. It also credibly threatened to postpone the start of the 34th Americas Cup, held between Sept. 7 and Sept. 25, 2013 in the San Francisco Bay, due to a pending motion for injunction.

The case was brought in New York since the terms and conditions of the deed of gift a trust instrument at the center of the Americas Cup are governed by New York law.

ADM, a sailing organization founded in 1994 by Charles M. Kithcart, a licensed captain with a 25-year history in maritime, filed claims on Dec. 12, 2011 in the Commercial Division for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Justice Barbara Kapnick, then seated in the division, dismissed the suit. The First Department reinstated the breach of contract claim.

Shortly before the 34th Cup began, ADM withdrew its motion to enjoin the start of the race while its claim was being considered. Boies Schiller sought the groups litigation funding source to prove a campaign of harassment against [Golden Gate Yacht Club] and its affiliates.

Rather than comply with a court order to produce this expedited discovery, ADM withdrew the motion and the Cup proceeded as scheduled.

The July 23 settlement, announced in a joint press release, relates to ADMs second amended complaint, filed Dec. 27, 2013, in which it sought more than $1 million in damages for the lost opportunity and potential sponsorship that could follow from competing on this international stage.

In court papers, McDermott Will & Emery argued that Golden Gates bad faith decision to deny ADMs application deprived the group of the highly lucrative opportunity to fundraise, negotiate deals with sponsors, and ultimately develop a recognizable brand to continue its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races.

In its motion to dismiss, Boies Schiller argued that the breach of contract claim is moot now that the 34th Cup is over. ADM also had not alleged that it would have been able to raise funds that exceeded the costs of participation had it been accepted into the Defender series, the firm said.

For a sense of the type of costs associated with the sailing competition, the four teams that competed in the 2013 regatta spent between $65 million and $100 million, reported the New York Times.

Andrew Kratenstein, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery representing ADM, declined to comment on the settlement. Philip Bowman, a partner at Boies Schiller and counsel to Golden Gate, also declined comment.

During Junes oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, Justice Saliann Scarpulla, who assumed Kapnicks docket when the latter was elevated to the First Department, expressed skepticism about ADMs right to damages.

All that [the contract] requires or guarantees is that you be given a fair shake, she told Kratenstein, according to the transcript. So what damages are you alleging from the failure to be given a fair shake? Because it does not follow that you get to be the Americas Cup team.

The judge ordered the parties into mediation.

The terms of the July 23 settlement are confidential. A joint release issued by the parties merely states that ADM is fully committed to continuing its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races while Golden Gate is fully supportive of ADMs stated mission.

In a phone interview with CLI Wednesday, Kithcart, ADMs founder, said while he could not comment on the settlement, The money is not the issue the issue is the opportunity to do great things, he said. If youre just dealing with dollar and cents, then youre missing the idea of achieving great things in this country.

He confirmed to CLI that ADM would not make a bid to compete in the 35th Americas Cup, set for 2017, due to the angst that this lawsuit caused. At any rate, Oracle Team USA which defeated Emirates Team New Zealand in the 34th Americas Cup and thus has rule-making authority already has announced the elimination of the Defenders Series next time around for other U.S. teams to challenge its perch heading into the international arena.

Kithcart said he will determine following his teams tours on the winter and summer circuits whether ADMs supporters want to see the group vie for a spot in the 36th Americas Cup.

The basic premise is that no matter what any settlement would be, we still want to be able to inspire our people to do well and to learn well and grow and we cant do that in a position we are in, he said. We want to do what our mission is, and our hope is we can do it uninhibited.

Suevon Lee can be reached at sylee@alm.com and on Twitter @suevlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

After three years of legal wrangling, a sailing group in North Carolina and the bearer of the prestigious Americas Cup trophy reached a settlement late last month following court-ordered mediation in New Yorks Commercial Division.

The July 23 settlement between African Diaspora Maritime Corporation and Golden Gate Yacht Club scuttles a dispute prompted by a spurned chance to compete in the 34th Americas Cup, the premier international yacht sailing race.

The case is African Diaspora Maritime Corporation v. Golden Gate Yacht Club, 653419/2011.

ADM, as the non-profit sailing group is referred to in court briefs, aims to promote the visibility of African American competitive sailors and raise awareness of the role of blacks in maritime history. The group submitted an application and the $25,000 fee on March 31, 2011 to compete in the Defender Series against defender Oracle Team USA, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison.

Two weeks later, Golden Gate rejected the application, saying it was not satisfied that ADM would have the resources and experience to have a reasonable chance of winning the Americas Cup Defender Series.

Golden Gate, as holder of the Cup, serves as trustee of the Americas Cup. ADM claimed that the club did not review its application in good faith.

ADMs suit against Golden Gate pit two major law firms against one other McDermott Will & Emery and Boies, Schiller & Flexner in a case that reached the Appellate Division, First Department. It also credibly threatened to postpone the start of the 34th Americas Cup, held between Sept. 7 and Sept. 25, 2013 in the San Francisco Bay, due to a pending motion for injunction.

The case was brought in New York since the terms and conditions of the deed of gift a trust instrument at the center of the Americas Cup are governed by New York law.

ADM, a sailing organization founded in 1994 by Charles M. Kithcart, a licensed captain with a 25-year history in maritime, filed claims on Dec. 12, 2011 in the Commercial Division for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Justice Barbara Kapnick, then seated in the division, dismissed the suit. The First Department reinstated the breach of contract claim.

Shortly before the 34th Cup began, ADM withdrew its motion to enjoin the start of the race while its claim was being considered. Boies Schiller sought the groups litigation funding source to prove a campaign of harassment against [Golden Gate Yacht Club] and its affiliates.

Rather than comply with a court order to produce this expedited discovery, ADM withdrew the motion and the Cup proceeded as scheduled.

The July 23 settlement, announced in a joint press release, relates to ADMs second amended complaint, filed Dec. 27, 2013, in which it sought more than $1 million in damages for the lost opportunity and potential sponsorship that could follow from competing on this international stage.

In court papers, McDermott Will & Emery argued that Golden Gates bad faith decision to deny ADMs application deprived the group of the highly lucrative opportunity to fundraise, negotiate deals with sponsors, and ultimately develop a recognizable brand to continue its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races.

In its motion to dismiss, Boies Schiller argued that the breach of contract claim is moot now that the 34th Cup is over. ADM also had not alleged that it would have been able to raise funds that exceeded the costs of participation had it been accepted into the Defender series, the firm said.

For a sense of the type of costs associated with the sailing competition, the four teams that competed in the 2013 regatta spent between $65 million and $100 million, reported the New York Times.

Andrew Kratenstein, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery representing ADM, declined to comment on the settlement. Philip Bowman, a partner at Boies Schiller and counsel to Golden Gate, also declined comment.

During Junes oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, Justice Saliann Scarpulla, who assumed Kapnicks docket when the latter was elevated to the First Department, expressed skepticism about ADMs right to damages.

All that [the contract] requires or guarantees is that you be given a fair shake, she told Kratenstein, according to the transcript. So what damages are you alleging from the failure to be given a fair shake? Because it does not follow that you get to be the Americas Cup team.

The judge ordered the parties into mediation.

The terms of the July 23 settlement are confidential. A joint release issued by the parties merely states that ADM is fully committed to continuing its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races while Golden Gate is fully supportive of ADMs stated mission.

In a phone interview with CLI Wednesday, Kithcart, ADMs founder, said while he could not comment on the settlement, The money is not the issue the issue is the opportunity to do great things, he said. If youre just dealing with dollar and cents, then youre missing the idea of achieving great things in this country.

He confirmed to CLI that ADM would not make a bid to compete in the 35th Americas Cup, set for 2017, due to the angst that this lawsuit caused. At any rate, Oracle Team USA which defeated Emirates Team New Zealand in the 34th Americas Cup and thus has rule-making authority already has announced the elimination of the Defenders Series next time around for other U.S. teams to challenge its perch heading into the international arena.

Kithcart said he will determine following his teams tours on the winter and summer circuits whether ADMs supporters want to see the group vie for a spot in the 36th Americas Cup.

The basic premise is that no matter what any settlement would be, we still want to be able to inspire our people to do well and to learn well and grow and we cant do that in a position we are in, he said. We want to do what our mission is, and our hope is we can do it uninhibited.

Suevon Lee can be reached at sylee@alm.com and on Twitter @suevlee.

His teams tour? Tour of what in what? What has he ever sailed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

After three years of legal wrangling, a sailing group in North Carolina and the bearer of the prestigious Americas Cup trophy reached a settlement late last month following court-ordered mediation in New Yorks Commercial Division.

The July 23 settlement between African Diaspora Maritime Corporation and Golden Gate Yacht Club scuttles a dispute prompted by a spurned chance to compete in the 34th Americas Cup, the premier international yacht sailing race.

The case is African Diaspora Maritime Corporation v. Golden Gate Yacht Club, 653419/2011.

ADM, as the non-profit sailing group is referred to in court briefs, aims to promote the visibility of African American competitive sailors and raise awareness of the role of blacks in maritime history. The group submitted an application and the $25,000 fee on March 31, 2011 to compete in the Defender Series against defender Oracle Team USA, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison.

Two weeks later, Golden Gate rejected the application, saying it was not satisfied that ADM would have the resources and experience to have a reasonable chance of winning the Americas Cup Defender Series.

Golden Gate, as holder of the Cup, serves as trustee of the Americas Cup. ADM claimed that the club did not review its application in good faith.

ADMs suit against Golden Gate pit two major law firms against one other McDermott Will & Emery and Boies, Schiller & Flexner in a case that reached the Appellate Division, First Department. It also credibly threatened to postpone the start of the 34th Americas Cup, held between Sept. 7 and Sept. 25, 2013 in the San Francisco Bay, due to a pending motion for injunction.

The case was brought in New York since the terms and conditions of the deed of gift a trust instrument at the center of the Americas Cup are governed by New York law.

ADM, a sailing organization founded in 1994 by Charles M. Kithcart, a licensed captain with a 25-year history in maritime, filed claims on Dec. 12, 2011 in the Commercial Division for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Justice Barbara Kapnick, then seated in the division, dismissed the suit. The First Department reinstated the breach of contract claim.

Shortly before the 34th Cup began, ADM withdrew its motion to enjoin the start of the race while its claim was being considered. Boies Schiller sought the groups litigation funding source to prove a campaign of harassment against [Golden Gate Yacht Club] and its affiliates.

Rather than comply with a court order to produce this expedited discovery, ADM withdrew the motion and the Cup proceeded as scheduled.

The July 23 settlement, announced in a joint press release, relates to ADMs second amended complaint, filed Dec. 27, 2013, in which it sought more than $1 million in damages for the lost opportunity and potential sponsorship that could follow from competing on this international stage.

In court papers, McDermott Will & Emery argued that Golden Gates bad faith decision to deny ADMs application deprived the group of the highly lucrative opportunity to fundraise, negotiate deals with sponsors, and ultimately develop a recognizable brand to continue its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races.

In its motion to dismiss, Boies Schiller argued that the breach of contract claim is moot now that the 34th Cup is over. ADM also had not alleged that it would have been able to raise funds that exceeded the costs of participation had it been accepted into the Defender series, the firm said.

For a sense of the type of costs associated with the sailing competition, the four teams that competed in the 2013 regatta spent between $65 million and $100 million, reported the New York Times.

Andrew Kratenstein, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery representing ADM, declined to comment on the settlement. Philip Bowman, a partner at Boies Schiller and counsel to Golden Gate, also declined comment.

During Junes oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, Justice Saliann Scarpulla, who assumed Kapnicks docket when the latter was elevated to the First Department, expressed skepticism about ADMs right to damages.

All that [the contract] requires or guarantees is that you be given a fair shake, she told Kratenstein, according to the transcript. So what damages are you alleging from the failure to be given a fair shake? Because it does not follow that you get to be the Americas Cup team.

The judge ordered the parties into mediation.

The terms of the July 23 settlement are confidential. A joint release issued by the parties merely states that ADM is fully committed to continuing its efforts to participate in future Americas Cup races while Golden Gate is fully supportive of ADMs stated mission.

In a phone interview with CLI Wednesday, Kithcart, ADMs founder, said while he could not comment on the settlement, The money is not the issue the issue is the opportunity to do great things, he said. If youre just dealing with dollar and cents, then youre missing the idea of achieving great things in this country.

He confirmed to CLI that ADM would not make a bid to compete in the 35th Americas Cup, set for 2017, due to the angst that this lawsuit caused. At any rate, Oracle Team USA which defeated Emirates Team New Zealand in the 34th Americas Cup and thus has rule-making authority already has announced the elimination of the Defenders Series next time around for other U.S. teams to challenge its perch heading into the international arena.

Kithcart said he will determine following his teams tours on the winter and summer circuits whether ADMs supporters want to see the group vie for a spot in the 36th Americas Cup.

The basic premise is that no matter what any settlement would be, we still want to be able to inspire our people to do well and to learn well and grow and we cant do that in a position we are in, he said. We want to do what our mission is, and our hope is we can do it uninhibited.

Suevon Lee can be reached at sylee@alm.com and on Twitter @suevlee.

Thanks Stingmon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADM's teams touring on the winter and summer circuits? What crap is he spewing there? This guy really has a knack of creating something from nothing on paper, its still bilge on the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ADM's teams touring on the winter and summer circuits? What crap is he spewing there? This guy really has a knack of creating something from nothing on paper, its still bilge on the water.

 

Spy photo of team practice.

 

canoe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they were sailing that much!

 

 

So far, I have never seen a boat associated with them with the exception of the model on Kithcart's desk in that promo vid he did way back when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with a well known NA who had done a couple of AC campaigns in the past who said that the ADM paid him $1 to use his name as their 'design team'! I asked him to add me to the team for the next campaign and that I would gladly join the effort for 50 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites