[DRTB]

A Guirri, on Jan 22 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

jorgensen-online, on Jan 22 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

fubaru, on Jan 22 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

You are correct in the first part. As for the rest, the MOL is a shot right across GGYC's bow. Only a fool would ignore the contents.

Only a fool would give any weight to arguments based on what happened in MC matches, which constitute a great deal of the MoL.

Timing is the important thing, we will have to see when any Court dates are set. essentially Feb. 8th will come before a decision, if it is referred to the Expert Panel, then there might be logistics too, can't be in two places at once.

alinghi will get to use their Minden sails with the issue not resolved.

Certainly looks on the cards. The best thing is that we will all get to relive this experience in the aftermatch function known as the BOFD action. Should be highly entertaining !

That's right Alberto but do you think that the BOiseFD will go anywhere after GGYC have succeeded in causing their own DSQ over CIC and other matters? It would certainly make Larry the World's Undisputed Worst Loser of All Time (WUWLOAT). He's an arrogant man who thought he could buy the Cup. He's suffering from classic symptoms of the "little man big car" syndrome. BTW, congratulations.

[BalticBandit]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

BalticBandit, on Jan 22 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

These are a well written set of papers. The goal here for the SNG lawyers is to obtain a "Mercury Bay" like decision and have the judge allow racing to go forward and rule afterwards if necessary. I think the papers raise enough issues of law and fact to accomplish this goal. Generally, if a Court can find a way to avoid deciding a difficult legal question it takes it. In this case, if the races go forward, and GGYC wins, the whole CIC issue will likely be moot. The danger is what happens if SNG "wins on the water", GGYC continues to pursue the CIC issue and Alinghi's sails are declared illegal. Perhaps losing the Cup under those circumstances is sufficient for Ernesto. He can then continue to claim how Larry Ellison won the AC in Court and not on the water. I would argue however that any such claim would be tainted, kind of like winning a Formula 1 race with an oversize engine. For me anyway, I would rather be branded a loser rather than a cheater.

Have you read the Cross Motion MOL yet? I don't think you will fully grasp what is happening unless you do. It's here:

http://multimedia.al...ion_-_Final.pdf

Ok lets look quickly at the Cross Motion

comes down to Four arguements

• GGYC is mean to us because they read the DoG more strictly than we do and we don't think they should have a right to question us
  
• GGYC's boat can't be American designed because it looks like a boat the french once designed
  
• GGYC's boat can't meet CiC because we heard rumour that they have Italian Hydraulics on board
  
• A wing is not a sail because we say so

#1 further breaks down into

• They are Meanies living in Glass houses (SNG seems to specialize in getting Attys to participate in the "how unprofessional a brief can you write" competition)
  
• They are MAKING US file this motion and that proves they are mean
  
• Because GGYC cites one IR in its historical analysis of CiC that includes "design" in the CiC definition,therefore Their boat must be designed elswhere and not CiC
  
• GGYC has no basis for arguing that "all parts of the vessel needed to sail the vessel" is included in the CiC (we are going to ignore the IR that we just cited in the paragraph above)

#2 breaks down into

• They hired a FRENCH company todesign the boat. French I tell you french
  
• Their boat LOOKS like a French boat we once saw
  
• Their French company is better than our designers and they aren't allowed to be better than our designers

#3 breaks down into

• Because Cariboni -an italian COMPANY is the "official supplier" for BMWOracle, the Hydraulics MUST have been made in italy
  
• Cariboni has no MFG facilities in the USA so its not possible that BMWO arragned to have the work done at a contract shop
  
• Their motor is made by a company that killed jews in WWII

#4 breaks down int

• DoG requires a boat propelled by sails ONLY (no masts allowed)
  
• GGYC said they were coming with a Sloop rigged boat and our imaginations weren't good enough to think this might include a wing mast so you can't allow a wing mast
  
• Russel said it was a wing in public
  
• Therefore the Win cannot be a sail... make them use a sail

As someone pointed out earlier, the SNG response was in general higher quality from a legal arguement standpoint than what we have come to expect from SNG though much of it was an EB whine.

THIS ONE is back to the same old crap. There isn't a consistent legal theory put forth here and they've tossed in a whole bunch of stuff that is NOT consistent with other things they are saying in other court docs.

One of the more interesting bits is that this is the first actual motion being made against GGYC for DoG failure. So using SNG's own Jurisdictional arguement in the Response, SNG would properly need to bring these issues as a de novo suit. It would be rather ironic if the SNG response to the Sail CiC was what gave the GGYC attys the basis for invalidating this motion.

And the court very well could apply the Jurisdictional standard SNG invokes WRT the wing and CiC complaints against GGYC but include the motion against SNG in the same DoG violation action already under way. Now that would come across as a rigged court to SNG, but that doesn't mean it really was rigged. It just would mean that once again, SNG outlawyered itself.


Actually I think MOST of the motions SNG are making are ones likely to backfire on themselves in court, because they have just opened the door to allow GGYC to bring into court its reams and reams of documentation on the detailed origin of its components. something SNG cannot do and meet CiC.

SNG really outdid themselves in fucking themselves in the ass. They are more limber than a male dog with itchy balls.

I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would make of your analysis ?

Um - he'd probably agree. but how that has any bearing on the issue is moot. What your response tells me is that you lack any FACT BASED challenge to my admittedly snarky summary.

[Fool on the Hill]

MR.CLEAN, on Jan 22 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

There are only two parts of the brief that have any legal weight IMO. The first is the concept of laches, which argues for BMW raising this issue earlier and perhaps being barred from raising it now. But since the issue hasn't come up before, and since BMW put Alinghi on notice a month ago, I'm guessing the judge will ignore laches. You'll remember that Alinghi raised it in the exact same way in their RAK reply brief, and they lost.

Was the RAK issue before the instance where the judge called on the parties to get it all out there on the table? Does this typically make a difference?

In the cross-complaint, does SNG have a legitimate right to discovery? Is this likely to be an effective delaying argument?

[SW Sailor]

BalticBandit, on Jan 22 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

These are a well written set of papers. The goal here for the SNG lawyers is to obtain a "Mercury Bay" like decision and have the judge allow racing to go forward and rule afterwards if necessary. I think the papers raise enough issues of law and fact to accomplish this goal. Generally, if a Court can find a way to avoid deciding a difficult legal question it takes it. In this case, if the races go forward, and GGYC wins, the whole CIC issue will likely be moot. The danger is what happens if SNG "wins on the water", GGYC continues to pursue the CIC issue and Alinghi's sails are declared illegal. Perhaps losing the Cup under those circumstances is sufficient for Ernesto. He can then continue to claim how Larry Ellison won the AC in Court and not on the water. I would argue however that any such claim would be tainted, kind of like winning a Formula 1 race with an oversize engine. For me anyway, I would rather be branded a loser rather than a cheater.

Have you read the Cross Motion MOL yet? I don't think you will fully grasp what is happening unless you do. It's here:

http://multimedia.al...ion_-_Final.pdf

Ok lets look quickly at the Cross Motion

comes down to Four arguements

• GGYC is mean to us because they read the DoG more strictly than we do and we don't think they should have a right to question us
  
• GGYC's boat can't be American designed because it looks like a boat the french once designed
  
• GGYC's boat can't meet CiC because we heard rumour that they have Italian Hydraulics on board
  
• A wing is not a sail because we say so

#1 further breaks down into

• They are Meanies living in Glass houses (SNG seems to specialize in getting Attys to participate in the "how unprofessional a brief can you write" competition)
  
• They are MAKING US file this motion and that proves they are mean
  
• Because GGYC cites one IR in its historical analysis of CiC that includes "design" in the CiC definition,therefore Their boat must be designed elswhere and not CiC
  
• GGYC has no basis for arguing that "all parts of the vessel needed to sail the vessel" is included in the CiC (we are going to ignore the IR that we just cited in the paragraph above)

#2 breaks down into

• They hired a FRENCH company todesign the boat. French I tell you french
  
• Their boat LOOKS like a French boat we once saw
  
• Their French company is better than our designers and they aren't allowed to be better than our designers

#3 breaks down into

• Because Cariboni -an italian COMPANY is the "official supplier" for BMWOracle, the Hydraulics MUST have been made in italy
  
• Cariboni has no MFG facilities in the USA so its not possible that BMWO arragned to have the work done at a contract shop
  
• Their motor is made by a company that killed jews in WWII

#4 breaks down int

• DoG requires a boat propelled by sails ONLY (no masts allowed)
  
• GGYC said they were coming with a Sloop rigged boat and our imaginations weren't good enough to think this might include a wing mast so you can't allow a wing mast
  
• Russel said it was a wing in public
  
• Therefore the Win cannot be a sail... make them use a sail

As someone pointed out earlier, the SNG response was in general higher quality from a legal arguement standpoint than what we have come to expect from SNG though much of it was an EB whine.

THIS ONE is back to the same old crap. There isn't a consistent legal theory put forth here and they've tossed in a whole bunch of stuff that is NOT consistent with other things they are saying in other court docs.

One of the more interesting bits is that this is the first actual motion being made against GGYC for DoG failure. So using SNG's own Jurisdictional arguement in the Response, SNG would properly need to bring these issues as a de novo suit. It would be rather ironic if the SNG response to the Sail CiC was what gave the GGYC attys the basis for invalidating this motion.

And the court very well could apply the Jurisdictional standard SNG invokes WRT the wing and CiC complaints against GGYC but include the motion against SNG in the same DoG violation action already under way. Now that would come across as a rigged court to SNG, but that doesn't mean it really was rigged. It just would mean that once again, SNG outlawyered itself.


Actually I think MOST of the motions SNG are making are ones likely to backfire on themselves in court, because they have just opened the door to allow GGYC to bring into court its reams and reams of documentation on the detailed origin of its components. something SNG cannot do and meet CiC.

SNG really outdid themselves in fucking themselves in the ass. They are more limber than a male dog with itchy balls.

Don't tell dirtbag - it might wake him up and spoil his dream B) .

[street_Gang]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

BalticBandit, on Jan 22 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

These are a well written set of papers. The goal here for the SNG lawyers is to obtain a "Mercury Bay" like decision and have the judge allow racing to go forward and rule afterwards if necessary. I think the papers raise enough issues of law and fact to accomplish this goal. Generally, if a Court can find a way to avoid deciding a difficult legal question it takes it. In this case, if the races go forward, and GGYC wins, the whole CIC issue will likely be moot. The danger is what happens if SNG "wins on the water", GGYC continues to pursue the CIC issue and Alinghi's sails are declared illegal. Perhaps losing the Cup under those circumstances is sufficient for Ernesto. He can then continue to claim how Larry Ellison won the AC in Court and not on the water. I would argue however that any such claim would be tainted, kind of like winning a Formula 1 race with an oversize engine. For me anyway, I would rather be branded a loser rather than a cheater.

Have you read the Cross Motion MOL yet? I don't think you will fully grasp what is happening unless you do. It's here:

http://multimedia.al...ion_-_Final.pdf

Ok lets look quickly at the Cross Motion

comes down to Four arguements

• GGYC is mean to us because they read the DoG more strictly than we do and we don't think they should have a right to question us
  
• GGYC's boat can't be American designed because it looks like a boat the french once designed
  
• GGYC's boat can't meet CiC because we heard rumour that they have Italian Hydraulics on board
  
• A wing is not a sail because we say so

#1 further breaks down into

• They are Meanies living in Glass houses (SNG seems to specialize in getting Attys to participate in the "how unprofessional a brief can you write" competition)
  
• They are MAKING US file this motion and that proves they are mean
  
• Because GGYC cites one IR in its historical analysis of CiC that includes "design" in the CiC definition,therefore Their boat must be designed elswhere and not CiC
  
• GGYC has no basis for arguing that "all parts of the vessel needed to sail the vessel" is included in the CiC (we are going to ignore the IR that we just cited in the paragraph above)

#2 breaks down into

• They hired a FRENCH company todesign the boat. French I tell you french
  
• Their boat LOOKS like a French boat we once saw
  
• Their French company is better than our designers and they aren't allowed to be better than our designers

#3 breaks down into

• Because Cariboni -an italian COMPANY is the "official supplier" for BMWOracle, the Hydraulics MUST have been made in italy
  
• Cariboni has no MFG facilities in the USA so its not possible that BMWO arragned to have the work done at a contract shop
  
• Their motor is made by a company that killed jews in WWII

#4 breaks down int

• DoG requires a boat propelled by sails ONLY (no masts allowed)
  
• GGYC said they were coming with a Sloop rigged boat and our imaginations weren't good enough to think this might include a wing mast so you can't allow a wing mast
  
• Russel said it was a wing in public
  
• Therefore the Win cannot be a sail... make them use a sail

As someone pointed out earlier, the SNG response was in general higher quality from a legal arguement standpoint than what we have come to expect from SNG though much of it was an EB whine.

THIS ONE is back to the same old crap. There isn't a consistent legal theory put forth here and they've tossed in a whole bunch of stuff that is NOT consistent with other things they are saying in other court docs.

One of the more interesting bits is that this is the first actual motion being made against GGYC for DoG failure. So using SNG's own Jurisdictional arguement in the Response, SNG would properly need to bring these issues as a de novo suit. It would be rather ironic if the SNG response to the Sail CiC was what gave the GGYC attys the basis for invalidating this motion.

And the court very well could apply the Jurisdictional standard SNG invokes WRT the wing and CiC complaints against GGYC but include the motion against SNG in the same DoG violation action already under way. Now that would come across as a rigged court to SNG, but that doesn't mean it really was rigged. It just would mean that once again, SNG outlawyered itself.


Actually I think MOST of the motions SNG are making are ones likely to backfire on themselves in court, because they have just opened the door to allow GGYC to bring into court its reams and reams of documentation on the detailed origin of its components. something SNG cannot do and meet CiC.

SNG really outdid themselves in fucking themselves in the ass. They are more limber than a male dog with itchy balls.

I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would make of your analysis ?

I am glad they mention the Italian Hydraulics ! Cariboni is an excellent company, but they are small, and don't have stuff "off the shelf" for large racing Trimarans - I think this will be a very sticky point for BOR, and probably impossible to rectify in time for the 8th of Feb.

[MR.CLEAN]

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 11:24 AM, said:

The cross motion papers on the other hand are not very good. First tip off is virtually no citations to governing law. Many of the arguments stretch the facts (the BMWO engine "MAY" have been designed or built in Germany or the wing sail "MAY" be used without a headsail). The argument that CIC includes "designed" in country of origin will be easily countered and likely, quickly rejected, it simply isn't in the Deed of Gift and SNG has thrown out all of the prior Interpretive Resolutions. Papers like this can cut against the chance of SNG winning or delaying the CIC issues. Courts have a pretty good sense of "BS" and these papers raise questionable and tenuous arguments. Lawyers of the caliber of Sullivan and Cromwell usually don't make these kind of arguments. They actually feel like the type of things the client insists on putting forward against the best advice of the lawyers.

That's a funny fucking document right there. You know when you read a Memorandum of Law and it starts with "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" that you've got a doozy on your hands.

These lawyers are working their asses off - creativity is a lot harder than solid legal writing.

[DRTB]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

BalticBandit, on Jan 22 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 04:57 PM, said:

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

These are a well written set of papers. The goal here for the SNG lawyers is to obtain a "Mercury Bay" like decision and have the judge allow racing to go forward and rule afterwards if necessary. I think the papers raise enough issues of law and fact to accomplish this goal. Generally, if a Court can find a way to avoid deciding a difficult legal question it takes it. In this case, if the races go forward, and GGYC wins, the whole CIC issue will likely be moot. The danger is what happens if SNG "wins on the water", GGYC continues to pursue the CIC issue and Alinghi's sails are declared illegal. Perhaps losing the Cup under those circumstances is sufficient for Ernesto. He can then continue to claim how Larry Ellison won the AC in Court and not on the water. I would argue however that any such claim would be tainted, kind of like winning a Formula 1 race with an oversize engine. For me anyway, I would rather be branded a loser rather than a cheater.

Have you read the Cross Motion MOL yet? I don't think you will fully grasp what is happening unless you do. It's here:

http://multimedia.al...ion_-_Final.pdf

Ok lets look quickly at the Cross Motion

comes down to Four arguements

• GGYC is mean to us because they read the DoG more strictly than we do and we don't think they should have a right to question us
  
• GGYC's boat can't be American designed because it looks like a boat the french once designed
  
• GGYC's boat can't meet CiC because we heard rumour that they have Italian Hydraulics on board
  
• A wing is not a sail because we say so

#1 further breaks down into

• They are Meanies living in Glass houses (SNG seems to specialize in getting Attys to participate in the "how unprofessional a brief can you write" competition)
  
• They are MAKING US file this motion and that proves they are mean
  
• Because GGYC cites one IR in its historical analysis of CiC that includes "design" in the CiC definition,therefore Their boat must be designed elswhere and not CiC
  
• GGYC has no basis for arguing that "all parts of the vessel needed to sail the vessel" is included in the CiC (we are going to ignore the IR that we just cited in the paragraph above)

#2 breaks down into

• They hired a FRENCH company todesign the boat. French I tell you french
  
• Their boat LOOKS like a French boat we once saw
  
• Their French company is better than our designers and they aren't allowed to be better than our designers

#3 breaks down into

• Because Cariboni -an italian COMPANY is the "official supplier" for BMWOracle, the Hydraulics MUST have been made in italy
  
• Cariboni has no MFG facilities in the USA so its not possible that BMWO arragned to have the work done at a contract shop
  
• Their motor is made by a company that killed jews in WWII

#4 breaks down int

• DoG requires a boat propelled by sails ONLY (no masts allowed)
  
• GGYC said they were coming with a Sloop rigged boat and our imaginations weren't good enough to think this might include a wing mast so you can't allow a wing mast
  
• Russel said it was a wing in public
  
• Therefore the Win cannot be a sail... make them use a sail

As someone pointed out earlier, the SNG response was in general higher quality from a legal arguement standpoint than what we have come to expect from SNG though much of it was an EB whine.

THIS ONE is back to the same old crap. There isn't a consistent legal theory put forth here and they've tossed in a whole bunch of stuff that is NOT consistent with other things they are saying in other court docs.

One of the more interesting bits is that this is the first actual motion being made against GGYC for DoG failure. So using SNG's own Jurisdictional arguement in the Response, SNG would properly need to bring these issues as a de novo suit. It would be rather ironic if the SNG response to the Sail CiC was what gave the GGYC attys the basis for invalidating this motion.

And the court very well could apply the Jurisdictional standard SNG invokes WRT the wing and CiC complaints against GGYC but include the motion against SNG in the same DoG violation action already under way. Now that would come across as a rigged court to SNG, but that doesn't mean it really was rigged. It just would mean that once again, SNG outlawyered itself.


Actually I think MOST of the motions SNG are making are ones likely to backfire on themselves in court, because they have just opened the door to allow GGYC to bring into court its reams and reams of documentation on the detailed origin of its components. something SNG cannot do and meet CiC.

SNG really outdid themselves in fucking themselves in the ass. They are more limber than a male dog with itchy balls.

I wonder what Benjamin Franklin would make of your analysis ?

I wonder what BB's analyst makes of BB? Too much pent up anger for my taste. :lol:

[MR.CLEAN]

Fool on the Hill, on Jan 22 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Is this likely to be an effective delaying argument?

Yep. Whether either boat is CinC is a detailed question of fact, which can only be addressed with a hearing that would likely be fairly extensive. That is why BMW restricted their arguments to sail blanks only, because that one has no real issues of fact, just law.

[ccruiser]

Tony_F18, on Jan 22 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Since we are splitting hairs, where do the fibers and films and resins come from that go into 3DL?

How are we splitting hairs? How is your question even meaningful? Even your guys agree that the use of raw materials from another country is okay. Did you read the opposition, (which is pretty well put together, and I agree it is a step above the earlier stuff by BO's office), it cited instance after instance of non native material being used, (ignoring for the moment that they where MC events, and that it overlooked the instances when the use of American made Dacron was ruled out).

The SNG substantive argument here is three fold - 1. Is the "material" supplied by North raw material, or is it in essence a sail kit if you will? (No one is arguing that all the raw materials in the vessel and its component parts must come for in country, except a few posters on this site.) 2. If it is a sail, has enough additional work been done on it so that it complies with CIC, and 3. Do sails fall under the CIC requirement?

[Xlot]

jorgensen-online, on Jan 22 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Timing is the important thing, we will have to see when any Court dates are set. essentially Feb. 8th will come before a decision, if it is referred to the Expert Panel, then there might be logistics too, can't be in two places at once.

Hardly surprising, and it's precisely the point our new friend meicklquick was trying to make in his "Has LE gone berserk?" thread ...

[sledracr]

I haven't read the full thread yet, so apologies in advance if this has already been said.

I think GGYC's response *must* be clear and succinct:

-- CIC has always been a core tenet of this "competition between countries"
-- Yes, non-US teams have been able to use US-made 3DL sails in the past
-- This has always been the result of an explicit *waiver* to the CIC requirement on sails
-- That waiver has been codified either in IRs or in a protocol, negotiated under Mutual Consent
-- SNG has rescinded all past protocols and IRs - they have no effect on this match.
-- SNG has steadfastly refused to negotiate Mutual Consent
-- As a result, directly due to SNG's own actions, the CIC requirement is in full-force for this match.

....repeat as necessary.

[SW Sailor]

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 09:22 AM, said:

A Guirri, on Jan 22 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

jorgensen-online, on Jan 22 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

fubaru, on Jan 22 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

You are correct in the first part. As for the rest, the MOL is a shot right across GGYC's bow. Only a fool would ignore the contents.

Only a fool would give any weight to arguments based on what happened in MC matches, which constitute a great deal of the MoL.

Timing is the important thing, we will have to see when any Court dates are set. essentially Feb. 8th will come before a decision, if it is referred to the Expert Panel, then there might be logistics too, can't be in two places at once.

alinghi will get to use their Minden sails with the issue not resolved.

Certainly looks on the cards. The best thing is that we will all get to relive this experience in the aftermatch function known as the BOFD action. Should be highly entertaining !

That's right Alberto but do you think that the BOiseFD will go anywhere after GGYC have succeeded in causing their own DSQ over CIC and other matters? It would certainly make Larry the World's Undisputed Worst Loser of All Time (WUWLOAT). He's an arrogant man who thought he could buy the Cup. He's suffering from classic symptoms of the "little man big car" syndrome. BTW, congratulations.

The one thing we do know for sure, is that based on your track record with the venue and rudders, their is a very high probability that you are wrong yet again, consistent, but wrong B) .

[BalticBandit]

MR.CLEAN, on Jan 22 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

Fool on the Hill, on Jan 22 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Is this likely to be an effective delaying argument?

Yep. Whether either boat is CinC is a detailed question of fact, which can only be addressed with a hearing that would likely be fairly extensive. That is why BMW restricted their arguments to sail blanks only, because that one has no real issues of fact, just law.

What is your thinking on GGYC using SNG's own jurisdictional claim to force the Cross Motion into a separeate de novo action?

[street_Gang]

southseasbill, on Jan 22 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

kiwi_jon, on Jan 23 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

The cross motion is a throw away item. It is purely a legal ploy to tie up GGYC's legal team in spending limited time available developing an argument against it.

The historical references that SNG used are correct. I spent most of today (business is a bit quiet) researching the sails used by the early AC yachts.

Before 1884 the all US yachts used American Cotton Duck for sails while the Brits swore by linen sails. In 1884 a British yacht, the Doris, arrived on the British yachting circuit carrying sails made out of American cotton duck. It cleaned up in all it's races forcing the British sailmakers to start making sails from American cotton duck. The British AC challengers Thistle and ValkyrieII were the the first yachts to challenge using sails made from American cotton duck. Meanwhile the British sailmakers had started developing their own cotton duck sail cloths using Egyptian cotton. When British sailmaker Ratsey started a loft 'Ratsey and Lapthorn' in the US in 1902 he introduced the US sailing community to sails made from Egyptian cotton duck. Egyptian cotton has a longer staple length than American cotton thus when spun and woven it creates a cloth that is lighter and stronger. Ratsey went on to provide sails for 10 AC challengers and 4 defenders.

Interesting stuff. I see also that Ratsey & Lapthorne Classic sails still exist. Were the Ratsey and Lapthorn sails made for the ten challengers made in the US though? Their website suggests that they had lofts established in both the US and UK.

It doesn't look good for BOR, check the article "America had British sails" just out on The Daily Sail.com. It appears that historians, and yacht designers are validating many of the points in SNG's favour.

[Smithy]

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

fubaru, on Jan 22 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

You are correct in the first part. As for the rest, the MOL is a shot right across GGYC's bow. Only a fool would ignore the contents.

Only a fool would give any weight to arguments based on what happened in MC matches, which constitute a great deal of the MoL.

What about the reversal of GGYC's statements on CIC?

GGYC's statements on CIC are not "reversed" in the SNG document, they are simply misrepresented. GGYC do not say (as SNG claim) that "constructed" includes "designed", the point hey are clearly making is that although the interpretation of "constructed" has varied over the years, it has always included sails.

It's SNG's willingness to be so disingenuous in their court filings - both this misrepresentation of what GGYC have said, the many references to past events which were in fact MC matches and hence irrelevant here, the repeated attempts to mislead by talking about use of "american cotton" being used when this is clearly just a source of (very) raw material and nothing to do with "construction" of the sail, remarks about use of "foreign sailmakers" when the sails in fact came from a US branch, etc, I find so amazing. At what point does the judge get seriously upset about such attempts to mislead?

[BalticBandit]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

southseasbill, on Jan 22 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

kiwi_jon, on Jan 23 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

The cross motion is a throw away item. It is purely a legal ploy to tie up GGYC's legal team in spending limited time available developing an argument against it.

The historical references that SNG used are correct. I spent most of today (business is a bit quiet) researching the sails used by the early AC yachts.

Before 1884 the all US yachts used American Cotton Duck for sails while the Brits swore by linen sails. In 1884 a British yacht, the Doris, arrived on the British yachting circuit carrying sails made out of American cotton duck. It cleaned up in all it's races forcing the British sailmakers to start making sails from American cotton duck. The British AC challengers Thistle and ValkyrieII were the the first yachts to challenge using sails made from American cotton duck. Meanwhile the British sailmakers had started developing their own cotton duck sail cloths using Egyptian cotton. When British sailmaker Ratsey started a loft 'Ratsey and Lapthorn' in the US in 1902 he introduced the US sailing community to sails made from Egyptian cotton duck. Egyptian cotton has a longer staple length than American cotton thus when spun and woven it creates a cloth that is lighter and stronger. Ratsey went on to provide sails for 10 AC challengers and 4 defenders.

Interesting stuff. I see also that Ratsey & Lapthorne Classic sails still exist. Were the Ratsey and Lapthorn sails made for the ten challengers made in the US though? Their website suggests that they had lofts established in both the US and UK.

It doesn't look good for BOR, check the article "America had British sails" just out on The Daily Sail.com. It appears that historians, and yacht designers are validating many of the points in SNG's favour.

Um actually it looks quite good for BoR. America isn't the first DoG match. So her rigging isn't really at issue.

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 09:41 AM, said:

southseasbill, on Jan 22 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

kiwi_jon, on Jan 23 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

The cross motion is a throw away item. It is purely a legal ploy to tie up GGYC's legal team in spending limited time available developing an argument against it.

The historical references that SNG used are correct. I spent most of today (business is a bit quiet) researching the sails used by the early AC yachts.

Before 1884 the all US yachts used American Cotton Duck for sails while the Brits swore by linen sails. In 1884 a British yacht, the Doris, arrived on the British yachting circuit carrying sails made out of American cotton duck. It cleaned up in all it's races forcing the British sailmakers to start making sails from American cotton duck. The British AC challengers Thistle and ValkyrieII were the the first yachts to challenge using sails made from American cotton duck. Meanwhile the British sailmakers had started developing their own cotton duck sail cloths using Egyptian cotton. When British sailmaker Ratsey started a loft 'Ratsey and Lapthorn' in the US in 1902 he introduced the US sailing community to sails made from Egyptian cotton duck. Egyptian cotton has a longer staple length than American cotton thus when spun and woven it creates a cloth that is lighter and stronger. Ratsey went on to provide sails for 10 AC challengers and 4 defenders.

Interesting stuff. I see also that Ratsey & Lapthorne Classic sails still exist. Were the Ratsey and Lapthorn sails made for the ten challengers made in the US though? Their website suggests that they had lofts established in both the US and UK.

It doesn't look good for BOR, check the article "America had British sails" just out on The Daily Sail.com. It appears that historians, and yacht designers are validating many of the points in SNG's favour.

IF IT DID HAVE UK SAILS

IT WAS --BEFORE THE DEED OF GIFT AND CIC

SO THAT LITTLE FACTUAL DETAIL MIGHT MATTER ----

[carcrash]

The design points in the MOL seem valid on the surface. By the same standards, SNG must likewise be disqualified. Since both have agreed before not to disqualify the other vessel, this entire argument will be struck down by the judge.

For exactly the same reasons, the arguments over the hydraulics and engine won't fly.

The arguments over the wing won't fly simply because of 1988.

Yet another legal loss to SNG.

[BalticBandit]

carcrash, on Jan 22 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

The design points in the MOL seem valid on the surface. By the same standards, SNG must likewise be disqualified. Since both have agreed before not to disqualify the other vessel, this entire argument will be struck down by the judge.

For exactly the same reasons, the arguments over the hydraulics and engine won't fly.

The arguments over the wing won't fly simply because of 1988.

Yet another legal loss to SNG.

Unless GGYC shows up in court with documentation that the engine and hydraulics were mfged in a custom machine shop in the USA. Then SNG is fucked and has to beg for an MC.

[dirtdog]

The SNG position is that only the Hull need be CIC.
winches?
motors?
rigging?
mast?
keel?
coatings?
sails?
fittings?
blocks/pullies?
lines?
electronics?
are all of these excluded by the SNG view?

[fubaru]

MR.CLEAN, on Jan 22 2010, 11:29 AM, said:

Whether either boat is CinC is a detailed question of fact, which can only be addressed with a hearing that would likely be fairly extensive. That is why BMW restricted their arguments to sail blanks only, because that one has no real issues of fact, just law.

Clean, if your'e right about this we're looking at a jury trial, not an extensive hearing. IMO both sides will stipulate the facts, (e.g. what was manufactured and/or assembled where) and it will be for the Judge to determine the meaning of 'constructed'.

[NAMT]

IMO this is the best of the submissions from BO et al to the courts.
I quite enjoyed reading this one, it had humour, pathos & some thought provoking elements.
Yes, there is the usual bs & flammery but there are a couple of good arguments.

I had always expected Alinghi to have a made in Switzerland certificate.
Why wouldn't they?
When we had a thread on this topic it certainly looked as though under Swiss law they could get one.
Still, as lots of posters argued it is irrelevant & I still support that view.

JR's historical analysis of the hulls, excluding sails technology, as being the 'core' of the AC technology focus was very interesting & persuasive.
Sure, 'America' raced before the DoG & there were MC agreements for many of the recent regattas, but the DoG's 4 corners may eventually be read by the court from JR's historical perspective.
I certainly do not rule that prospect out.
BMWO will perhaps have a lot more up their sleeve re the historical interpretations of the deed & they may need it.
I am really looking forward to reading their response.

Practically all the other arguments, from my lay person's view look like smoke & mirrors.
So a B+ grade at least from the BO team this time instead of their usual D to F grade.

[dirtdog]

street_Gang, on Jan 22 2010, 12:41 PM, said:

southseasbill, on Jan 22 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

kiwi_jon, on Jan 23 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

The cross motion is a throw away item. It is purely a legal ploy to tie up GGYC's legal team in spending limited time available developing an argument against it.

The historical references that SNG used are correct. I spent most of today (business is a bit quiet) researching the sails used by the early AC yachts.

Before 1884 the all US yachts used American Cotton Duck for sails while the Brits swore by linen sails. In 1884 a British yacht, the Doris, arrived on the British yachting circuit carrying sails made out of American cotton duck. It cleaned up in all it's races forcing the British sailmakers to start making sails from American cotton duck. The British AC challengers Thistle and ValkyrieII were the the first yachts to challenge using sails made from American cotton duck. Meanwhile the British sailmakers had started developing their own cotton duck sail cloths using Egyptian cotton. When British sailmaker Ratsey started a loft 'Ratsey and Lapthorn' in the US in 1902 he introduced the US sailing community to sails made from Egyptian cotton duck. Egyptian cotton has a longer staple length than American cotton thus when spun and woven it creates a cloth that is lighter and stronger. Ratsey went on to provide sails for 10 AC challengers and 4 defenders.

Interesting stuff. I see also that Ratsey & Lapthorne Classic sails still exist. Were the Ratsey and Lapthorn sails made for the ten challengers made in the US though? Their website suggests that they had lofts established in both the US and UK.

It doesn't look good for BOR, check the article "America had British sails" just out on The Daily Sail.com. It appears that historians, and yacht designers are validating many of the points in SNG's favour.

that race had nothing to do with the DoG, court will not consider it.

[ccruiser]

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 03:57 PM, said:

Tom Corbett, on Jan 22 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

These are a well written set of papers. The goal here for the SNG lawyers is to obtain a "Mercury Bay" like decision and have the judge allow racing to go forward and rule afterwards if necessary. I think the papers raise enough issues of law and fact to accomplish this goal. Generally, if a Court can find a way to avoid deciding a difficult legal question it takes it. In this case, if the races go forward, and GGYC wins, the whole CIC issue will likely be moot. The danger is what happens if SNG "wins on the water", GGYC continues to pursue the CIC issue and Alinghi's sails are declared illegal. Perhaps losing the Cup under those circumstances is sufficient for Ernesto. He can then continue to claim how Larry Ellison won the AC in Court and not on the water. I would argue however that any such claim would be tainted, kind of like winning a Formula 1 race with an oversize engine. For me anyway, I would rather be branded a loser rather than a cheater.

Have you read the Cross Motion MOL yet? I don't think you will fully grasp what is happening unless you do. It's here:

http://multimedia.al...ion_-_Final.pdf

I have and Mr. Corbett has it exactly right the principal purpose of the cross motion is to gain a delay in any ruling, not to win.

Lets analyze the cross motion - 1. It assets that USA is not a sloop because to be a sloop requires that a vessel be sailed with both an head sail and a main sail, and USA will be sailed at times without a head sail. Even you must acknowledge that it is possible to sail all sloops with or without a head sail, or for that matter a mainsail, its done all the time. That fact, that they are sailed without one or the other does not mean they are not sloops. (Well you probably will not admit to the time of day, but any fair minded person would, and the court will turn this and the wing argument over to the expert panel for a recommendation - SNG loses there on both these issues) 2. It argues that sails as in propelled by sails only are foldable fabric - "By definition, and according to past America’s Cup practice, a “sail” is made of foldable fabric; it is not a rigid wing" (emphaisis added) This history overlooks the only other DoG match, where a wing without a head sail was used without objection; 3. As for CIC it argues without citation that if GGYC's argument is correct than every nut and bolt must be CIC - this is just a very poor argument, and is certainly not consistent with GGYC's argument - it essentially gets down to the raw material level, and is not supported by the language of the Deed. They do make a good point on the engine, as it is necessary to run the boat, but again it is fine if we adopt an off the shelf standard, winches are necessary also. 3. It asks for a delay of the hearing, (see purpose stated above), so it can do discovery into the CIC bona fides of USA, this is an attempt to force a continuance of the hearing until after the racing. But it demonstrates a level of amateurishness - If you have reason to believe that there are non CIC items bring them up, as they have - the engine - otherwise move on. I have an idea, why not ask GGYC for the documentation on parts you suspect are not CIC compliant tp try to resolve any issues outside of court, rather asking the court to be allowed to go on a discovery fishing expedition.

But the sweetest part was the statement that: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If this Court permits
GGYC’s procedurally improper CIC motion to go forward, SNG must fulfill its duty as holder of the America’s Cup by putting SNG’s similar CIC claims against GGYC – and all other related claims about GGYC’s vessel – before the Court." I am sure they did not mean it to come out that way - but they will finally get around to acting like the trustee and fulfilling their obligations if the court permits the GGYC motion to go forward. What a statement - what an admission. Now they are threatening the court with fulfilling their trust obligations unless the court dismisses the GGYC motion - that is quite a gambit for a trustee. If you consider whether I am playing by the rules then I will take my duties seriously, otherwise not?

[MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS]

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 09:22 AM, said:

A Guirri, on Jan 22 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

jorgensen-online, on Jan 22 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

fubaru, on Jan 22 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

dontrocktheboat, on Jan 22 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

You are correct in the first part. As for the rest, the MOL is a shot right across GGYC's bow. Only a fool would ignore the contents.

Only a fool would give any weight to arguments based on what happened in MC matches, which constitute a great deal of the MoL.

Timing is the important thing, we will have to see when any Court dates are set. essentially Feb. 8th will come before a decision, if it is referred to the Expert Panel, then there might be logistics too, can't be in two places at once.

alinghi will get to use their Minden sails with the issue not resolved.

Certainly looks on the cards. The best thing is that we will all get to relive this experience in the aftermatch function known as the BOFD action. Should be highly entertaining !

That's right Alberto but do you think that the BOiseFD will go anywhere after GGYC have succeeded in causing their own DSQ over CIC and other matters? It would certainly make Larry the World's Undisputed Worst Loser of All Time (WUWLOAT). He's an arrogant man who thought he could buy the Cup. He's suffering from classic symptoms of the "little man big car" syndrome. BTW, congratulations.

Attached File(s)

•  SNG_NORTH_001.JPG (107.99K)
  Number of downloads: 76