Recommended Posts

Spooner vs Boat (4) What's the news on today's hearing?

 

'Let my people go' or 'Show me the money'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By Colin Thompson http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20150317/SPORT30/150319734

Sailing Correspondent

 

Patience is the key to Spithill’s recovery

Jimmy Spithill, helmsman of America’s Cup defender Oracle Team USA, is in a race against the clock to regain fitness in time for the start of the America’s Cup World Series in June.

The multiple America’s Cup winner, 2014 ISAF Rolex World Sailor of the Year and past King Edward VII Gold Cup champion underwent elbow surgery in Los Angeles last month. It remains to be seen whether he will make a full recovery to helm Oracle’s foiling AC45 catamaran in the America’s Cup World Series opener in Sardinia, Italy.

“I had the surgery three weeks ago in Los Angeles and the procedure went well,” Spithill said.

“It was quite a traumatic surgery for the elbow. It’s not keyhole surgery, there’s quite a big gash, so the healing process just takes time.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am pleased to say that SF was my third consecutive AC, and yes it was terrific.

 

Rennmaus likes to comment that (re)meeting other SA'ers is an AC highlight, and it's absolutely true.

 

Nice, what was your favorite bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spooner vs Boat (4) What's the news on today's hearing?

 

'Let my people go' or 'Show me the money'?

+1, am curious too. Nothing new showing here, so far, but could be worth keeping an eye on: https://www.lawsuitdata.com/lawsuit-data/natures-of-suit/contract-lawsuits/marine/california-northern-district-court/0000830087/spooner-v-multi-hull-foiling-ac45-vessel-quot-4-oracle-team-usa-quot--et-al/officially-filed-court-documents/lawsuit-summary/

 

Porthos, does your magic key reveal anything new behind the magic door today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spooner vs Boat (4) What's the news on today's hearing?

 

'Let my people go' or 'Show me the money'?

+1, am curious too. Nothing new showing here, so far, but could be worth keeping an eye on: https://www.lawsuitdata.com/lawsuit-data/natures-of-suit/contract-lawsuits/marine/california-northern-district-court/0000830087/spooner-v-multi-hull-foiling-ac45-vessel-quot-4-oracle-team-usa-quot--et-al/officially-filed-court-documents/lawsuit-summary/

 

Porthos, does your magic key reveal anything new behind the magic door today?

 

The court entered minutes from the hearing today that say only that Oracle's motion to release the boat has been submitted. Hearing lasted 51 minutes. If the court made any ruling, there is nothing official in the docket yet. My guess is that the court made no ruling at the hearing and will release a written opinion soon. The court did direct counsel to meet and discuss settlement in two weeks and set a case management conference for 5/15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

 

That's Larry. He'd rather spend more money fighting than it takes to settle.

 

Grudge Match http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0920/6407050a.html

 

Siebel fired back in June with a lawyer’s letter ordering Ellison to stop his nasty ads or get sued. It quotd an illicitly obtained e-mail from Ellison lieutenant Raymond Lane and accused Oracle of trying to “kill Siebel.” Ellison returned serve with a letter of his own, vowing to sue Tom Siebel if he didn’t stop sending copies of his letter to Oracle’s customers and partners.

“The ads have stopped, and I consider the matter over,” Siebel says now. Ellison says the ads will continue unchanged. Go ahead and sue, he jeers: “We have more lawyers than they have programmers.

 

Must reading: The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison*: Inside Oracle Corporation

*God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison

ISBN-10: 0060008768

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

 

Why should GGYC have settled with SNG? Seems to me GGYC/Oracle Racing kicked the crap out of SNG/Alinghi in the court room and on the water.

 

As for ADM...one of these days the truth will come out about who funded ADM, and who got the funder involved.

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

Why should GGYC have settled with SNG? Seems to me GGYC/Oracle Racing kicked the crap out of SNG/Alinghi in the court room and on the water.

 

As for ADM...one of these days the truth will come out about who funded ADM, and who got the funder involved.

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

 

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Spooner vs Boat (4) What's the news on today's hearing?

 

'Let my people go' or 'Show me the money'?

+1, am curious too. Nothing new showing here, so far, but could be worth keeping an eye on: https://www.lawsuitdata.com/lawsuit-data/natures-of-suit/contract-lawsuits/marine/california-northern-district-court/0000830087/spooner-v-multi-hull-foiling-ac45-vessel-quot-4-oracle-team-usa-quot--et-al/officially-filed-court-documents/lawsuit-summary/

 

Porthos, does your magic key reveal anything new behind the magic door today?

The court entered minutes from the hearing today that say only that Oracle's motion to release the boat has been submitted. Hearing lasted 51 minutes. If the court made any ruling, there is nothing official in the docket yet. My guess is that the court made no ruling at the hearing and will release a written opinion soon. The court did direct counsel to meet and discuss settlement in two weeks and set a case management conference for 5/15.
The shorter-take AP article, at various sites

--

 

SAN DIEGO (AP) A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered attorneys for Americas Cup champion Oracle Team USA and Joe Spooner to meet during the next two weeks to discuss a settlement of the fired sailors lawsuit.

 

Spooner, a grinder from New Zealand, was fired in January after he asked for a raise to help cover the cost of relocating to Bermuda, where Oracle has chosen to defend the Americas Cup in 2017.

 

On March 9, marshals seized Oracles souped-up, 45-foot catamaran in response to Spooners lien. He is seeking at least $725,000.

 

The disassembled boat is in three shipping containers at Pier 80. Oracle is the process of moving its operations to Bermuda.

 

Chief magistrate Joseph C. Spero told the sides on Tuesday to come back in two weeks with a method for settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is Oracle incapable of settling instead of resorting to courts ?

 

Alinghi, ADM, Peskhin, AC45 cheating, Spooner, .......next ?

 

Why should GGYC have settled with SNG? Seems to me GGYC/Oracle Racing kicked the crap out of SNG/Alinghi in the court room and on the water.

 

As for ADM...one of these days the truth will come out about who funded ADM, and who got the funder involved.

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

 

You can't explain everything by a vast conspiration from Ernesto or the Kiwis.

Even the judge, as for ADM, asks them to settle, there is a pattern of Oracle often in the grey zone and refusing to settle, whatever the case.

 

As for Corey F, his predictions got slaughtered, another pattern...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

 

 

You promised it would be resolved/revealed at CAS.

Basically OTUSA will keep going until they can claim some sort of vindication - that's what rich people can afford to do, the 'three strikes rule' doesn't apply to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

 

 

You promised it would be resolved/revealed at CAS.

Basically OTUSA will keep going until they can claim some sort of vindication - that's what rich people can afford to do, the 'three strikes rule' doesn't apply to them.

 

 

 

Yes, what do you mean by too? There was something recently that came out that proved a whole story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The AC 45 issue, there is ongoing litigation that will eventually prove out that whole story too.

 

 

You promised it would be resolved/revealed at CAS.

Basically OTUSA will keep going until they can claim some sort of vindication - that's what rich people can afford to do, the 'three strikes rule' doesn't apply to them.

 

 

 

Where did I say that OTUSA was going to do anything to to claim vindication?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are not habitual liars

 


Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

At least they are not habitual liars

 

No need to lie or even embellish -- Larry is unabashed about who he is. Not that it matters, but for the record I do know Larry, have no axe to grind or any skin in the game. I just posted an amusing excerpt from Forbes and a citation to one of the better books on Larry and Oracle.

 

"When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts going for you, pound the table your opponent." ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are not habitual liars

 

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

 

You mean like team France is fully funded ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE.

Uberliar or Uberstupid ? I have nothing to do with LE, I appreciated his SF show and posted it here, I call what I don't like from any team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At least they are not habitual liars

 

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

 

You mean like team France is fully funded ?

 

 

Divert all you want. I'm not the one with a proven track record of lying...but you are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

At least they are not habitual liars

 

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

 

You mean like team France is fully funded ?

 

Divert all you want. I'm not the one with a proven track record of lying...but you are!

 

You apparently confuse a diversion with a simple fact. Where is this track record you speak of anyway ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At least they are not habitual liars

Well Navas and obviously TC have an axe to grind against LE. let them spew their shit on SAAC and see where it gets them. Lets try nowhere.

You mean like team France is fully funded ?

Say it ain't so...

 

Known liar ubertroll using my material to go after the other known liar...the odious clean..

 

Wot a wankfest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been to court for my business many times and one thing I have learned is lawyers don't let the truth or the facts get in the way of their case.

Generally a terrible lot (when in court at least), whether on your side or against, so it is always best to have the better crook on your side.

This case seems pretty straight forward, Spooner says, I need more money or I can't go to Bermuda." Ok, OR says, "Sorry to hear that, we are paying you all you are going to get, I guess you have to stay home. Here's two weeks and good luck."

Spooner gave an ultimatum and OR said to take a hike. Seems Spooner simply played his limited and short hand poorly and lost.

He will not prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been to court for my business many times and one thing I have learned is lawyers don't let the truth or the facts get in the way of their case.

Generally a terrible lot (when in court at least), whether on your side or against, so it is always best to have the better crook on your side.

This case seems pretty straight forward, Spooner says, I need more money or I can't go to Bermuda." Ok, OR says, "Sorry to hear that, we are paying you all you are going to get, I guess you have to stay home. Here's two weeks and good luck."

Spooner gave an ultimatum and OR said to take a hike. Seems Spooner simply played his limited and short hand poorly and lost.

He will not prevail.

 

I reckon, its a contract dispute, not a employee at will suit. Spooner could never work in this country if he weren't sponsored by a U.S. firm. He would need a written agreement to get a green card. I think this will be in play. I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

For sure it's the cheapest most efficient solution. And both parties will be required by the settlement to withold the settlement terms.

 

It's by far the most likely outcome, and Spooner's lawyer would have known that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

BTW, the Oracle boat is still "schackled" in 3 boxes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we can't even begin to presume that. What's almost a certainty is that this 9th circuit judge simply wants it off his busy-with-much-more-important-things docket. edit: and wrong on that detail too: there ~is~ an increased housing expense allowance, it's just not as big as what Spooner was demanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

For sure it's the cheapest most efficient solution. And both parties will be required by the settlement to withold the settlement terms.

 

It's by far the most likely outcome, and Spooner's lawyer would have known that.

 

It should be obvious by now that OR does not "settle" when they are in the right.

 

Just ask... Ernie and crappy kithkart and on and on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we can't even begin to presume that. What's almost a certainty is that this 9th circuit judge simply wants it off his busy-with-much-more-important-things docket.

Not necessarily. Oracle probably moved to dismiss, and failed, meaning that Spooner has enough of a case to go forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

For sure it's the cheapest most efficient solution. And both parties will be required by the settlement to withold the settlement terms.It's by far the most likely outcome, and Spooner's lawyer would have known that.
It should be obvious by now that OR does not "settle" when they are in the right.

Oracle (Larry) does not settle period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

For sure it's the cheapest most efficient solution. And both parties will be required by the settlement to withold the settlement terms.It's by far the most likely outcome, and Spooner's lawyer would have known that.

 

It should be obvious by now that OR does not "settle" when they are in the right.

 

Oracle (Larry) does not settle period.

 

Please tell all about the times they weren't right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

 

The issue might be for RC, if he has a limited budget that includes any and all potential legal fees. He may have to make the 'to settle or fight it' call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I also predict, OTUSA will cut a check to make Spooner go away and get their boat back. It's the cheapest most efficient means to an end.

For sure it's the cheapest most efficient solution. And both parties will be required by the settlement to withold the settlement terms.It's by far the most likely outcome, and Spooner's lawyer would have known that.
It should be obvious by now that OR does not "settle" when they are in the right.
Oracle (Larry) does not settle period.
Please tell all about the times they weren't right?

Start here: http://www.dailytech.com/On+Like+Donkey+Kong+Googles+Schmidt+Calls+Larry+Ellison+a+Sore+Loser/article33240.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

The issue might be for RC, if he has a limited budget that includes any and all potential legal fees. He may have to make the 'to settle or fight it' call.

I'm sure LE knows. RC is on a short leash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What big tech company has not faced multiple court appearances? Most of them intentionally use the system to settle things.

 

But AC wise, when LE doubled down against Bertarelli, he won 14 of 15 decisions. And the one he 'lost' backfired on Ernesto, because it bought enough time for Larry's OR to complete the biggest wing ever built, of any kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

The issue might be for RC, if he has a limited budget that includes any and all potential legal fees. He may have to make the 'to settle or fight it' call.

I'm sure LE knows. RC is on a short leash.

 

Pure speculation.

 

A better guess, Larry says, "don't lose" ...because it has the Oracle brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure LE knows. RC is on a short leash.

He is?

 

Yes, LE posted it on his facebook page. You must have missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

 

 

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

 

 

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)
Absolutely, wouldn't be any surprise unless he makes a rare call to RC for some reason and RC brings it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

 

 

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)
Absolutely, wouldn't be any surprise unless he makes a rare call to RC for some reason and RC brings it up.

 

Or his ex buddy Siebel sends him an email :) No, Larry is enough involved in sailing to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

 

 

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)
Absolutely, wouldn't be any surprise unless he makes a rare call to RC for some reason and RC brings it up.

 

how well do you know the relationship between Larry and Russell?

 

oh, you never answered which bits of the last three AC events you visited were your favorite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)

Absolutely, wouldn't be any surprise unless he makes a rare call to RC for some reason and RC brings it up.

 

Oracle's Lane Says, `I Just Didn't Fit' / With role shrinking, exec chose to resign

 

While Lane, 53, Oracle's president and chief operating officer, was on vacation with his two daughters in Oregon, Ellison called him and essentially stripped him of most of his duties -- from the departments that reported to him to the deals that Lane usually cleared.

 

Ellison, who has dramatically increased his role in the Redwood Shores company's day-to-day operations in the past year, would extend his control to the approval of "every PC the company bought, to every person the company hired" under the new plan, Lane said.

 

So Lane resigned, fueling speculation of a rift with Ellison or a tie-in to the now-infamous Microsoft-related Dumpster diving.

 

But Lane, in his first interview since his resignation, told The Chronicle that neither was the case. Lane said it was his decision to leave, and he holds no bitterness toward the database software company that helped make him a billionaire. "I just didn't fit" within Ellison's new hierarchy, he said.

 

However, he conceded that the split "wasn't amicable" and "doesn't sit well. I think the president (of a company) should make decisions. I think the CFO should make decisions.

 

"I've never seen a CEO micromanage every decision at a company," Lane added. "It's strange."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

BTW, the Oracle boat is still "schackled" in 3 boxes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, but OR did offer increased living expenses, to the tune of over $4000 a month! About the average American salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

BTW, the Oracle boat is still "schackled" in 3 boxes...

Poor assumption. Courts routinely encourage parties to discuss settlement in all types of cases. In some courts, and particularly in federal courts (where this case is pending) settlement conferences are mandatory even if they stand little chance of succeeding. In the minutes I referenced from the hearing on Tuesday, the court had the option of also requiring the parties to addend mandatory mediation or a settlement conference before the magistrate judge at this time and the court chose to do neither.

 

What likely happened is that the court either asked the parties at the hearing what the prospects of settlement were generally or with respect to the arrested boat specifically, or the parties indicated that they were talking about a potential settlement. The court likely instructed them to have any settlement discussions within the next two weeks as it might obviate the need for the court to write an opinion and rule on Oracle's motion to release the boat.

 

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly. If the judge believed Oracle breached the contract, he would have denied Oracle's motion outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

BTW, the Oracle boat is still "schackled" in 3 boxes...

Poor assumption. Courts routinely encourage parties to discuss settlement in all types of cases. In some courts, and particularly in federal courts (where this case is pending) settlement conferences are mandatory even if they stand little chance of succeeding. In the minutes I referenced from the hearing on Tuesday, the court had the option of also requiring the parties to addend mandatory mediation or a settlement conference before the magistrate judge at this time and the court chose to do neither.

 

What likely happened is that the court either asked the parties at the hearing what the prospects of settlement were generally or with respect to the arrested boat specifically, or the parties indicated that they were talking about a potential settlement. The court likely instructed them to have any settlement discussions within the next two weeks as it might obviate the need for the court to write an opinion and rule on Oracle's motion to release the boat.

 

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly. If the judge believed Oracle breached the contract, he would have denied Oracle's motion outright.

 

If you assume that, the contrary should also be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

I wonder if Spooners attorney has cashed her retainer checks. Looks like she sold him a bill of goods. He may just get a settlement of $3,000 if he's lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I did not comment on the contract as I have not seen it. Corey Friedman claimed Spooner broke it and would lose immediatly.

However if the court asked them to settle we can presume that OTUSA was the one who broke the contract by asking his employees to move to a more expensive location without modifying expense fees.

 

BTW, the Oracle boat is still "schackled" in 3 boxes...

Poor assumption. Courts routinely encourage parties to discuss settlement in all types of cases. In some courts, and particularly in federal courts (where this case is pending) settlement conferences are mandatory even if they stand little chance of succeeding. In the minutes I referenced from the hearing on Tuesday, the court had the option of also requiring the parties to addend mandatory mediation or a settlement conference before the magistrate judge at this time and the court chose to do neither.

 

What likely happened is that the court either asked the parties at the hearing what the prospects of settlement were generally or with respect to the arrested boat specifically, or the parties indicated that they were talking about a potential settlement. The court likely instructed them to have any settlement discussions within the next two weeks as it might obviate the need for the court to write an opinion and rule on Oracle's motion to release the boat.

 

Your assumption that the judge's reference to settlement must mean that Oracle breached the contract is just plain silly. If the judge believed Oracle breached the contract, he would have denied Oracle's motion outright.

 

If you assume that, the contrary should also be true.

 

This brings your legal eagle track record to 0 of 5423, but not to worry, you're still ahead of MSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

I wonder if Spooners attorney has cashed her retainer checks. Looks like she sold him a bill of goods. He may just get a settlement of $3,000 if he's lucky.

 

You should care reading before making unsupported comments Calimero, this case is about that: "This Order focuses on Oracle Racing‘s arguments that ―the Contract did not contemplate Mr. Spooner supplying services to the ‗4 ORACLE TEAM USA,‘ a necessary requirement to assert a maritime lien,‖ and that Spooner‘s ―work visa has no connection to any particular vessel.‖"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

 

Thanks for the simple and clear explanation.

 

Question - if the boat has been released, why did the Judge order settlement talks, and schedule a hearing for a two months from now?

 

If there was no case, wouldn't he have just dismissed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

I wonder if Spooners attorney has cashed her retainer checks. Looks like she sold him a bill of goods. He may just get a settlement of $3,000 if he's lucky.

 

You should care reading before making unsupported comments Calimero, this case is about that: "This Order focuses on Oracle Racing‘s arguments that ―the Contract did not contemplate Mr. Spooner supplying services to the ‗4 ORACLE TEAM USA,‘ a necessary requirement to assert a maritime lien,‖ and that Spooner‘s ―work visa has no connection to any particular vessel.‖"

 

Astute observation Holmes. That only has to do with the arrest of the vessel, not his work related expenses which he may have an argument for. This explains why you're 0 of 5423 on legal matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

 

Thanks for the simple and clear explanation.

 

Question - if the boat has been released, why did the Judge order settlement talks, and schedule a hearing for a two months from now?

 

If there was no case, wouldn't he have just dismissed?

 

Read the whole thing, including judgement. It clearly states that the releasing of the boat has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of Spooner's case, only that the circumstances of the case, even if proven, doesn't allow for a lien on the vessel, for the reasons so clearly explained by porthos. I still cannot see Spooner winning, but who knows - this is being heard in a US court which means anything could happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Court said that the issuance of the arrest warrant was proper as there was some uncertainty as to whether or when Oracle was going to move the boat.

 

Court then said that in order to be able to place a lien on Boat 4, Spooner had to show that he was hired to provide services to, and did provide services to, that vessel. Spooner's contract, however, was much more general than that and did not reference him supplying services to a specific Oracle vessel. Rather, he was just hired to work for the Oracle team and his duties to the team could have varied and included non-maritime components. Because Spooner could not allege that he was hired specifically to work on Boat 4, he could not place a lien on it.

 

For the same reason, the court rejected Spooner's argument that he can place a lien on Boat 4 because he supplied "necessities" to it in the form of getting in O-1 visa (the lien would have been for the expenses he incurred in getting the visa). The court indicated that his requirement to get a visa was not tied to any specific vessel (including Boat 4) but rather was so that he could fulfill his general obligations to the Oracle team. As such, he could not place a visa-related lien on any specific vessel, including Boat 4.

 

In other words, Oracle hired Spooner to be available to work on any of many existing and non-existing Oracle boats. Under those circumstances, maritime law does not allow him to place a lien on any specific vessel. The court did note that if he had not been paid for work that he had done, then he would likely be entitled to a lien. But Oracle paid Spooner for all the work he did and Spooner is only seeking to be paid for work that he expected to do but was prevented from doing due to Oracle terminating his contract.

 

Thanks for the simple and clear explanation.

 

Question - if the boat has been released, why did the Judge order settlement talks, and schedule a hearing for a two months from now?

 

If there was no case, wouldn't he have just dismissed?

 

Read the whole thing, including judgement. It clearly states that the releasing of the boat has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of Spooner's case, only that the circumstances of the case, even if proven, doesn't allow for a lien on the vessel, for the reasons so clearly explained by porthos. I still cannot see Spooner winning, but who knows - this is being heard in a US court which means anything could happen!

 

If California at-will employment law comes into the picture he doesn't have a chance, although TC will argue otherwise and increase his record to 0 and 5424. Best case his $3000 visa is paid for and he goes home with his tale between his legs and nothing else..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, it seems Spooner is getting his legal advice from TC.

And he'll proudly claim "they read it on SA". What a joke, and where is our resident legal and math expert clean on the matter ? Hard to believe he hasn't weighed in on the matter given his legal acumen on such situations. Probably busy posting it to the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's small potatoes to Larry, he couldn't give a second's thought to what happens in this case, may very well not even know of it.

^^ So Larry's boat is in 3 boxes under police control, it was published in prominent business newspaper, and Larry doesn't know ? :)

 

Absolutely, wouldn't be any surprise unless he makes a rare call to RC for some reason and RC brings it up.

 

Oracle's Lane Says, `I Just Didn't Fit' / With role shrinking, exec chose to resign

 

While Lane, 53, Oracle's president and chief operating officer, was on vacation with his two daughters in Oregon, Ellison called him and essentially stripped him of most of his duties -- from the departments that reported to him to the deals that Lane usually cleared.

 

Ellison, who has dramatically increased his role in the Redwood Shores company's day-to-day operations in the past year, would extend his control to the approval of "every PC the company bought, to every person the company hired" under the new plan, Lane said.

 

So Lane resigned, fueling speculation of a rift with Ellison or a tie-in to the now-infamous Microsoft-related Dumpster diving.

 

But Lane, in his first interview since his resignation, told The Chronicle that neither was the case. Lane said it was his decision to leave, and he holds no bitterness toward the database software company that helped make him a billionaire. "I just didn't fit" within Ellison's new hierarchy, he said.

 

However, he conceded that the split "wasn't amicable" and "doesn't sit well. I think the president (of a company) should make decisions. I think the CFO should make decisions.

 

"I've never seen a CEO micromanage every decision at a company," Lane added. "It's strange."

 

Then Lane has a few things to learn about some SV companies and what makes them successful. And apparently so do you, which is not a surprise. Try working for one if you want first hand knowledge and experience, which you obviously don't have..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as reinbursement of legal fees for getting the visa, Spooner has an uphill battle if what the Court Order states that "an employee of Oracle Racing" said he would be reimbursed. That is about as vague as it gets. Better come up with a name and one with some authority to authorize the payment or that's going nowhere.

"Yea, one of the guys I work with told me..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like Spooner may have decided he wanted out, and this seemed like a good way to do that. If so, the interesting question to me is why he wanted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as reinbursement of legal fees for getting the visa, Spooner has an uphill battle if what the Court Order states that "an employee of Oracle Racing" said he would be reimbursed. That is about as vague as it gets. Better come up with a name and one with some authority to authorize the payment or that's going nowhere.

"Yea, one of the guys I work with told me..."

But have you conferred with TC on your legal assessment ? He prides himself on being an expert on such matters as we witnessed in AC33 where he consistently failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like Spooner may have decided he wanted out, and this seemed like a good way to do that. If so, the interesting question to me is why he wanted out.

Wow - that's really hard to figure out, eh ? What's your first guess ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pure politics and stupidity combined on this forum continues to amaze me. Just waiting for nav to weigh in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Question - if the boat has been released, why did the Judge order settlement talks, and schedule a hearing for a two months from now?

 

If there was no case, wouldn't he have just dismissed?

 

The short answer is that the court this time only addressed whether Spooner had a legal right to put a lien on Boat 4 and the court did not make any decision on the merits of Spooner's underlying claims. In other words, the court said that even if Spooner had a valid claim -- and the court was not ruling one way or the other whether he did -- maritime law did not permit him to put a lien on Boat 4 under the circumstances he alleged.

 

The first time Spooner tried to arrest Boat 4, the court denied it and (unlike this time) did address directly the merits of Spooner's claims. That time, the court said that the contract allowed Oracle to terminate the agreement at any time such that Spooner had no claim for wrongful termination. The court dismissed Spooner's claims against the boat (but not against Oracle Racing).

 

As a result of these filings and decisions, Spooner will still be able to pursue his claims against Oracle Racing for wrongful termination; he may not seek to recover anything from Boat 4 (which for legal purposes is its own entity).

 

I don't know why the court told the parties to talk settlement. As I indicated in an earlier post, it could be because the parties themselves mentioned it at the hearing, it could be that this judge tells all litigants before him to talk settlement, it may be that he thinks this particular case should settle and was leaning on the parties to do that. Without more information, I would just be speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like Spooner may have decided he wanted out, and this seemed like a good way to do that. If so, the interesting question to me is why he wanted out.

Respectfully, that conclusion makes no legal sense and is entirely contrary to Spooner's attempt to recover $750,000 from Oracle. If Spooner wanted out, he simply could have walked away from the employment relationship. Oracle could not force him to work where he did not wish to work. We fought a war about that a bit ago.

 

Moreover, one of the prerequisites Spooner must show in his claim to recover against Oracle for denying him future employment and $750,000 was that he (Spooner) was ready, willing, and able to provide the future employment. If Spooner was unwilling to work for Oracle going forward, he cannot assert a claim for future wages. You cannot get paid for work you cannot or are unwilling to perform.

 

Given the fact that Spooner sued Oracle for future wages, the better assumption is that he was willing to work to earn them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks to me like Spooner may have decided he wanted out, and this seemed like a good way to do that. If so, the interesting question to me is why he wanted out.

Respectfully, that conclusion makes no legal sense and is entirely contrary to Spooner's attempt to recover $750,000 from Oracle. If Spooner wanted out, he simply could have walked away from the employment relationship. Oracle could not force him to work where he did not wish to work. We fought a war about that a bit ago.

 

Moreover, one of the prerequisites Spooner must show in his claim to recover against Oracle for denying him future employment and $750,000 was that he (Spooner) was ready, willing, and able to provide the future employment. If Spooner was unwilling to work for Oracle going forward, he cannot assert a claim for future wages. You cannot get paid for work you cannot or are unwilling to perform.

 

Given the fact that Spooner sued Oracle for future wages, the better assumption is that he was willing to work to earn them.

 

With respect, you're missing my point. Things are not always what they seem. Had Spooner simply walked away, he would have gone home with nothing (and looked like a quitter). This way he has some chance of going home with a large check (although collecting if he wins could be difficult now that the boat arrest is over). And just because he might like to go home doesn't mean he's not ready, willing, and able to fulfill the contract.

 

As for why (if my speculation is correct), it might simply be that his family doesn't want to spend years in Bermuda. Another possibility is that he's been (or expects to be) downgraded, and doesn't want to spend years on the beach in Bermuda. He's already pretty old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Looks to me like Spooner may have decided he wanted out, and this seemed like a good way to do that. If so, the interesting question to me is why he wanted out.

Respectfully, that conclusion makes no legal sense and is entirely contrary to Spooner's attempt to recover $750,000 from Oracle. If Spooner wanted out, he simply could have walked away from the employment relationship. Oracle could not force him to work where he did not wish to work. We fought a war about that a bit ago.

 

Moreover, one of the prerequisites Spooner must show in his claim to recover against Oracle for denying him future employment and $750,000 was that he (Spooner) was ready, willing, and able to provide the future employment. If Spooner was unwilling to work for Oracle going forward, he cannot assert a claim for future wages. You cannot get paid for work you cannot or are unwilling to perform.

 

Given the fact that Spooner sued Oracle for future wages, the better assumption is that he was willing to work to earn them.

 

With respect, you're missing my point. Things are not always what they seem. Had Spooner simply walked away, he would have gone home with nothing (and looked like a quitter). This way he has some chance of going home with a large check (although collecting if he wins could be difficult now that the boat arrest is over). And just because he might like to go home doesn't mean he's not ready, willing, and able to fulfill the contract.

 

As for why (if my speculation is correct), it might simply be that his family doesn't want to spend years in Bermuda. Another possibility is that he's been (or expects to be) downgraded, and doesn't want to spend years on the beach in Bermuda. He's already pretty old.

 

Well, I guess if Spooner wanted to get out of the contract and still get paid for it this would be one way to do it. If that is your point. Rather disingenuous on his part, if that is the case. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Why do you suggest that Spooner would have a hard time collecting from Oracle Racing? If Oracle Racing doesn't have sufficient assets to satisfy a $750,000 judgment, it has no hopes of winning AC35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if Spooner wanted to get out of the contract and still get paid for it this would be one way to do it. If that is your point. Rather disingenuous on his part, if that is the case. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Why do you suggest that Spooner would have a hard time collecting from Oracle Racing? If Oracle Racing doesn't have sufficient assets to satisfy a $750,000 judgment, it has no hopes of winning AC35.

 

Yes, that's my point, and as for being disingenuous, this is the America's Cup after all. ;) On the matter of collection, there's the issue of time (given the inevitable appeals if OR loses) and whether OR will still have sufficient assets within reach of the Court to satisfy a judgement. If everything is in Bermuda, there may not be much Spooner can get. Unless he wants Dogzilla. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I guess if Spooner wanted to get out of the contract and still get paid for it this would be one way to do it. If that is your point. Rather disingenuous on his part, if that is the case. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

Why do you suggest that Spooner would have a hard time collecting from Oracle Racing? If Oracle Racing doesn't have sufficient assets to satisfy a $750,000 judgment, it has no hopes of winning AC35.

 

Yes, that's my point, and as for being disingenuous, this is the America's Cup after all. ;) On the matter of collection, there's the issue of time (given the inevitable appeals if OR loses) and whether OR will still have sufficient assets within reach of the Court to satisfy a judgement. If everything is in Bermuda, there may not be much Spooner can get. Unless he wants Dogzilla. ;)

 

Federal judgments are good for 20 years. Moreover, Oracle Racing surely will not be moving all of its assets to Bermuda. Even if it did, Spooner would have six years to register the judgment in Bermuda and act on it. Enforcing a money judgment like this overseas is not as onerous as one might think, particularly in a self-governing British territory. Moreover, if Oracle loses and appeals, Oracle would have to post a bond equal to 125% of the judgment. Which means that money would be readily available to Spooner if he ultimately prevails. All of which is to say, of all the problems with Spooner's case -- and there are a few -- collection is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But have you conferred with TC on your legal assessment ? He prides himself on being an expert on such matters as we witnessed in AC33 where he consistently failed.

 

In AC33 I posted that US courts were unpredictable but that DZ polluting system would not be accepted by European authorities. OR took it off their boat a few days after it was posted on SA. You read it first here SWS :) .

2010_1_30-pollution.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, and a few other posters here, are not lawyers, not even US citizens, which doesn't prevent us to try to understand what is going on. So yes, we can be right or wrong in our understanding.

 

The Oraclites writing here proud themselves of their superior knowledge of the US law system. It is interesting to post what was written by professtionnal US lawyers like Cory Friedman a few days ago. As for ADM, they were proved wrong in their prediction, both parties were ordered to settle (part of the article from Scuttle Butt):

 

 

"Most of the other arguments trying to transform the preliminary contract into what would have been a final contract and a maritime contract do not compute. For example, you can claim that public policy supports a result provided by the law. You cannot claim, as Spooner’s lawyer does, that public policy supports a result that is not provided by the law. That is merely an argument to be made to Congress to change the law. Bolding the font or adding exclamation points does not help. A claim for necessaries requires unpaid necessaries, which do not exist.

The Court will undoubtedly deal with all these issues, but as in the last instance, it likely will come down to whether Oracle Racing owes Spooner anything. No claim for damages equals no arrest. On that issue, stripped of all the smoke and mirrors, Spooner does not look any better than last time.

Spooner signed a contract that provided for termination by either party for any reason on two weeks’ notice. The fact that Oracle Racing had no Human Resources Department, and Oracle Racing’s British lawyer Sam Hollis is not admitted in California, and thus cannot engage in the authorized practice of law, makes no difference. He was Oracle’s lawyer, not Spooner’s lawyer. Spooner is an adult and should have had his own lawyer look at the preliminary contract.

Even more fundamentally, no matter what contract Spooner had, an employee who refuses to work for the agreed wages can be fired and does not have a claim for anything. Calling that firing retaliatory is simply silly. It is not retaliatory. It is the deal. Walk away from it and you are done. So is your vessel arrest. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/03/15/americas-cup-courts-and-sailor-compensation/#sthash.8EXkIEX5.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet the case hasn't been dismissed.

Yes, I guess you noticed that the boat was kept and then released based on maritime laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I, and a few other posters here, are not lawyers, not US citizens which doesn't prevent us to try to understand what is going on, so, yes, we can be right or wrong.

 

The Oraclites writing here proud themselves of their superior knowledge of the US law system. I think it is interesting, for those who did not already see it, to post what was written by professtionnal US lawyers like Corey Friedman a few days ago. As for ADM they were proved wrong in their prediction and both parties were ordered to settle (from Scuttle Butt):

 

 

"Most of the other arguments trying to transform the preliminary contract into what would have been a final contract and a maritime contract do not compute. For example, you can claim that public policy supports a result provided by the law. You cannot claim, as Spooner’s lawyer does, that public policy supports a result that is not provided by the law. That is merely an argument to be made to Congress to change the law. Bolding the font or adding exclamation points does not help. A claim for necessaries requires unpaid necessaries, which do not exist.

The Court will undoubtedly deal with all these issues, but as in the last instance, it likely will come down to whether Oracle Racing owes Spooner anything. No claim for damages equals no arrest. On that issue, stripped of all the smoke and mirrors, Spooner does not look any better than last time.

Spooner signed a contract that provided for termination by either party for any reason on two weeks’ notice. The fact that Oracle Racing had no Human Resources Department, and Oracle Racing’s British lawyer Sam Hollis is not admitted in California, and thus cannot engage in the authorized practice of law, makes no difference. He was Oracle’s lawyer, not Spooner’s lawyer. Spooner is an adult and should have had his own lawyer look at the preliminary contract.

Even more fundamentally, no matter what contract Spooner had, an employee who refuses to work for the agreed wages can be fired and does not have a claim for anything. Calling that firing retaliatory is simply silly. It is not retaliatory. It is the deal. Walk away from it and you are done. So is your vessel arrest. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

- See more at: http://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2015/03/15/americas-cup-courts-and-sailor-compensation/#sthash.8EXkIEX5.dpuf

 

Figuring out what a court will do is difficult even for experienced lawyers. This particular case is a good example. The judge in this case considered Spooner's request to arrest Boat 4 not once but twice. The judge denied it both times but for entirely different reasons. The first time, he ruled that Spooner could not assert a claim against the boat for wrongful termination because the contract he had with Oracle Racing allowed him to be terminated at any time (such that there could be no wrongful termination). This time, the court ruled that the contract Spooner had with Oracle Racing did not contemplate Spooner providing specific services to Boat 4 such that he could not place a lien on that boat. The result is the same -- no lien -- but the reasoning is different.

 

The judge could have used the exact same reasoning he applied the second time around to deny the lien the first time around but failed to do so. Why? Who knows. Certainly the reasoning the judge used the second time around obviated the need for him to decide a whole bunch of other issues. For instance, the judge the second time around did not even address what the termination provisions of the contract were (which he did address the first time around.) As a general matter, courts do like to find the easiest way to rule on something, particularly at a preliminary stage of the proceeding, which is where this is. Perhaps the judge had some more time to think about the matter. Perhaps the parties raised different arguments this time around. From this most recent opinion, it does appear that Oracle argued exactly what the judge ruled, namely that Spooner did not have a close enough connection with Boat 4 to be able to place a lien on it.

 

I know next to nothing about maritime law and could in no way have predicted the judge's ruling. To the extent that Friedman dude knows something about it, he missed it, too. Sometimes you can have a good sense as to what a court will do; others, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But have you conferred with TC on your legal assessment ? He prides himself on being an expert on such matters as we witnessed in AC33 where he consistently failed.

 

In AC33 I posted that US courts were unpredictable but that DZ polluting system would not be accepted by European authorities. OR took it off their boat a few days after it was posted on SA. You read it first here SWS :) .

2010_1_30-pollution.jpg

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Larry was reading SA one night and said "fuck me, Tornado Cat says the damn anti-friction systems isn't legal. WTF didn't Coutts know that? Better tell them to get it off the boat pronto".

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the system didn't work all that well in the first place, there was concern about the racing rules, that it added a bunch of weight, and yes, the Euro pollution rules were a concern, but in the end, they were fast enough without it, so the risk/reward just suggested there was no real reason to keep it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I, and a few other posters here, are not lawyers, not even US citizens, which doesn't prevent us to try to understand what is going on. So yes, we can be right or wrong in our understanding.

 

The Oraclites writing here proud themselves of their superior knowledge of the US law system. It is interesting to post what was written by professtionnal US lawyers like Cory Friedman a few days ago. As for ADM, they were proved wrong in their prediction, both parties were ordered to settle (part of the article from Scuttle Butt):

 

 

Cory Friedman is a dumbass and Scuttlebutt is still sucking up to Oracle after Leweck got chewed out last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Porthos - if you have a sec, can you frame the visa application vs. employment contract issue for me so I can send it over to my immigration law buddy for some research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites