Jump to content


GGYC ORACAKLE SF CAT ASS TROPHE


  • Please log in to reply
1153 replies to this topic

#101 Similitude

Similitude

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Location:Monrovia
  • Interests:All Hunters, all the time

Posted 08 December 2011 - 03:56 PM

Why do you people respond to this guy. He's either completely off his rocker or the most brilliant troll I've seen in quite some time. In either case, all he wants is attention.

#102 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:51 PM

Why do you people respond to this guy. He's either completely off his rocker or the most brilliant troll I've seen in quite some time. In either case, all he wants is attention.

We respond to him because people like you would rather have him banned. It's called freedom of speech. Something I doubt you understand.

#103 Similitude

Similitude

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Location:Monrovia
  • Interests:All Hunters, all the time

Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:01 PM


Why do you people respond to this guy. He's either completely off his rocker or the most brilliant troll I've seen in quite some time. In either case, all he wants is attention.

We respond to him because people like you would rather have him banned. It's called freedom of speech. Something I doubt you understand.


I have no interest in seeing him banned nor did I ever claim so, and your assumption that I would wish that speaks much more to your character than it does my own.

I don't think you should respond to him for the same reason I don't respond to people who walk down the street wearing signs and shouting about the world is ending on such and such a date. I don't respond because arguing with this sort zealot is largely pointless and simply mires a person down when they can be pursuing other things.

#104 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:28 PM

You can agree or not with MSP, I don't think he is asking for unanimity anyway, but he brings information here that often most of us don't have.

#105 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2011 - 12:40 AM



Why do you people respond to this guy. He's either completely off his rocker or the most brilliant troll I've seen in quite some time. In either case, all he wants is attention.

We respond to him because people like you would rather have him banned. It's called freedom of speech. Something I doubt you understand.


I have no interest in seeing him banned nor did I ever claim so, and your assumption that I would wish that speaks much more to your character than it does my own.

I don't think you should respond to him for the same reason I don't respond to people who walk down the street wearing signs and shouting about the world is ending on such and such a date. I don't respond because arguing with this sort zealot is largely pointless and simply mires a person down when they can be pursuing other things.


my bold above

thanks for the attention here is a sign of the times

America's Cup's cash tide yet to flow

Bizjournals.com
Amid slow sponsorship sales, America's Cup officials have shaken up management, recruited sports marketing agencies and may rein in next year's racing schedule. Cup officials said they are in a solid financial position as they prepare to hold ...


#106 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 02:18 AM

MSP, cannot read the full article without paying. If you have it, could you paste it ? I'm sure our Soiler would read it too .;)

#107 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2011 - 05:19 AM


PRESTIGIOUS AMERICA'S CUP FLIES THE FLAGFOR JERSEY

that's wrong, ever so wrong, the only flag of complacency they could have possibly chosen for the America Cup was Liberia, would have been fitting on so many levels that one, waddamistakadamaka ! :D



Full registration with the British Register of Ships in Jersey
registration in Jersey provides many benefits, including membership of the Red Ensign Group and a registry with over 200 years of history.

Full registration proves the title, ownership and nationality of a vessel worldwide. A mortgage may be entered on the register, which protects a lender's interest.


Why register on the full register?
The benefits include:

  • membership of the Red Ensign Group (REG)
  • regulated by the UK's Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  • linked with Jersey's well-regulated offshore finance centre
  • VAT-free temporary importation into EU for non-EU residents
  • renewal every 10 years with no annual charge
  • commercial coding recognition
  • social security insurance exemptions
Posted Image Download more information about the benefits of registration in Jersey


Is my vessel eligible?


Your vessel is eligible if:

  • you or your company are part of the Commonwealth, EU, British Isles, Crown Dependencies or Overseas Terrritories
  • your pleasure vessel is under 400 gross tons or commercial vessel under 150 gross tons
You do not need to be resident in Jersey.




How long is registration valid for?
The Certificate of Registry is valid for 10 years if ownership does not change during this period (other REG registries are valid for 5 years only).

Upon change of ownership the period commences again for another 10 years.

The registration number allocated is unique to the vessel and cannot be transferred to another craft.



Cost of registration


How do I register?
In order to register, you are required to complete and submit the following documentation to the British Register of Ships in Jersey:

  • application form
  • declaration of eligibility form
  • title (ownership) documentation in the form of a Builder's Certificate and / or Bill(s) of Sale covering at least the previous 5 years (or fewer years if a new build)
  • proof of closure from any prior registry
  • a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation if it is to be company owned
  • a tonnage survey (obtainable from an authorised surveyor)
  • commercial coding certificate if it is to be commercially registered (from MECAL Ltd)
  • the prescribed fee
English forms:



http://www.gov.je/TR...gistration.aspx

Posted ImageDownload application to register as an individual or joint (JR01) <br style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Verdana; ">Posted ImageDownload application to register as a company (JR01A)
Posted ImageDownload declaration of eligibility (JR05)
Posted ImageDownload builder's certificate (JR03)<br style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Verdana; ">http://www.gov.je/_layouts/IMAGES/icpdf.gifDownload Bill of Sale (JR04)


#108 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2011 - 03:51 PM

America's Cup mum on how it will cover city costs


San Francisco Examiner

Getting there: The America's Cup Organizing Committee is only saying it is “well on track” to meet a goal of raising $12 million. Facing fundraising deadlines soon,America's Cup race organizers are tight-lipped on how much they have in hand to cover ...


#109 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2011 - 08:41 PM

America's Cup


Fort Mason Center is issuing an Request for Interest (RFI) to find creative uses to activate our campus during the 2012 America's Cup World Series. ...
ww.fortmason.org/aboutus/americas-cup


#110 acintel

acintel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 11 December 2011 - 09:08 PM

America's Cup


Fort Mason Center is issuing an Request for Interest (RFI) to find creative uses to activate our campus during the 2012 America's Cup World Series. ...
ww.fortmason.org/aboutus/americas-cup


they have an AC logo of their own. Is that ambush or another poor handling by ACAlphabet?

Maybe Craig Thompson wants to apply and suggest some of his great ideas. He sure has some time free ahead.

#111 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2011 - 09:46 PM


America's Cup


Fort Mason Center is issuing an Request for Interest (RFI) to find creative uses to activate our campus during the 2012 America's Cup World Series. ...
ww.fortmason.org/aboutus/americas-cup


they have an AC logo of their own. Is that ambush or another poor handling by ACAlphabet?

Maybe Craig Thompson wants to apply and suggest some of his great ideas. He sure has some time free ahead.


agree I saw that logo --2012 seems impossible and diff than evilsin coutts evil circus
and its the feds so wtf is anyone going to do including alphabet -golden gate yacht club shell corpsePosted Image


I think ct has a shot to work with city of sf --Posted Image

cheers

#112 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 11 December 2011 - 09:51 PM

Is this the world's most tedious thread?

#113 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 13 December 2011 - 12:23 AM

Running Silent: A-Cup Committee Plays it Close to the Vest on ...

By Philip Ferrato
With only a few weeks left before their deadline, the America's Cup Organizing Committee has remained silent on how much money has been raised to defray municipal expenses for the America's Cup Races. They've committed themselves to ...
Curbed SF


#114 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 04:59 PM

Posted Image

#115 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 14 December 2011 - 01:02 AM

WTF package 6 --hilarious
ggyc has run out of time for evilsin coutts circus

Dear Interested Parties:On December 13, 2011, the Port of San Francisco submitted to the Regional Water Board supplemental information on the Section 401 Water Quality Certification Application for the 34th America's Cup/James T. Herman Cruise Terminal Project. Supplemental Information Package No. 6 has been posted for public review on our website at http://www.swrcb.ca....public_notices/. It includes a list of studies proposed as mitigation for dredging impacts, and the 34th America's Cup Zero Waste Plan (also available for comment on the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development's website at http://www.oewd.org/...ericas_Cup.aspx). The deadline to submit comments on Supplemental Information Package No. 6 is January 3, 2011.Regards,Xavier
Xavier Fernandez
Environmental Scientist
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: 510-622-5685


#116 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 15 December 2011 - 02:50 AM

S.F. vote on report big hurdle for America's Cup
San Francisco Chronicle
This huge facility is where Team Oracle are developing the techniques and boats for the American's Cup. Today the environmental impact report for the America's Cup regatta will go before the Planning Commission to be certified. ...
See all stories on this topic »
America's Cup Environmental Report in Limbo
The Bay Citizen (blog)
By John Upton |December 14, 2011 5:33 pm |In America's Cup Environmental and neighborhood groups are asking for more time to review a report on the impacts of the America's Cup sailing event, saying the document has a long list of shortcomings. ...
See all stories on this topic »


#117 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 15 December 2011 - 04:51 AM

Environment panel might hold up America's Cup in San Francisco


San Francisco Examiner
Groups that have raised environmental concerns about the America's Cup said Wednesday that they intend to slow down the development approval process if the Planning Commission will not do so. The commission is scheduled to vote Friday on the event's ...


#118 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:14 AM

Swimmers to Protest America's Cup by Occupying the Bay
The Bay Citizen
Now some of the club's 1200 members believe the city needs an attitude adjustment — and they intend to do exactly that by disrupting plans for the coming America's Cupyacht races in 2012 and 2013. Specifically, the swimmers object to a proposal to ...


#119 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:30 AM

Planning Commission Draft Motion



7. The Planning Commission hereby does find that the FEIR concerning File No. 2010.0493E,
the 34th America’s Cup & James R Herman Cruise Terminal & Northeast Wharf Plaza
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City and County of San Francisco, is
adequate, accurate and objective, and that the Comments and Responses document contains
no significant revisions to the DEIR, and hereby does CERTIFY THE COMPLETION of said
FEIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
8. The Commission, in certifying the completion of said FEIR, hereby does find that the 34th
America’s Cup project described in the EIR:
A. Will have a significant project‐specific effect on the environment by:
a. reducing levels of service at 18 signalized and unsignalized intersections;
b. impacting other signalized and unsignalized intersections;
c. resulting in a significant impact on traffic operations;
d. exceeding available transit capacity of Muni lines, PresidiGo shuttle service, AC
Transit lines, BART lines, WETA lines, Golden Gate Transit bus and ferry lines,
Blue & Gold ferry lines, Caltrain service, and SamTrans lines;
e. impacting transit operations related to additional congestion resulting from the
project;
f. disrupting regular scheduled ferry operations;
g. resulting in potentially significant impacts to the transportation network in
combination with other special events occurring simultaneously in San
Francisco;
h. resulting in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the San Francisco General Plan or San Francisco Noise
Ordinance;
i. resulting in a temporary and periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project associated with
increased traffic levels on weekends;
j. resulting in construction emission of criteria pollutants and precursors that
would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation;
k. resulting in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic
air contaminants or respirable particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with
construction;
3Motion No. ____________
Hearing Date: December 15, 2011
CASE NO. 2010.0493E
l. violating an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation associated with operations;
m. exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air
contaminants or respirable particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with
operations.
B. Potential long‐term development as a result of the AC34 project will have a significant
conceptual effect on the environment, to be further analyzed at a project‐specific level
when proposed, by:
a. conflicting with BCDC policies adopted for the purpose of mitigating
environmental effects;
b. resulting in redevelopment of existing Port properties at Piers 30‐32, which could
result in a significant impact to cultural resources;
c. resulting in significant traffic and transit impacts;
d. resulting in construction and operational air pollutant emissions;
C. Will have a significant cumulative effect on the environment in that it would result in
significant adverse cumulative impacts on air quality.
9. The Commission, in certifying the completion of said FEIR, hereby does find that the James
R. Herman Cruise Terminal and Northeast Wharf Plaza project described in the EIR.
A. Will have a significant project‐specific effect on the environment by:
a. contributing to existing exceedance of capacity utilization standard on the F‐
Market & Wharves historic streetcar line;
b.resulting in emission of criteria pollutants and precursors associated with
construction that would violate an air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
B. Will have a significant cumulative effect on the environment in that it would:
a. result in significant project and cumulative impacts at the intersections of The
Embarcadero/ Broadway, The Embarcadero/ Washington, The Embarcadero/
Mission, The Embarcadero/ Howard;
b.result in significant project and cumulative impacts on the F‐Market & Wharves
historic streetcar;
c. result in significant and unavoidable adverse cumulative noise impacts;
4Motion No. ____________
Hearing Date: December 15, 2011
5
CASE NO. 2010.0493E
d. result in significant adverse cumulative impacts on air quality
10. All included Variants would result in the same significant environmental impacts at the
proposed projects.
11. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR.

http://commissions.s.../2010.0493E.pdf

#120 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 02:34 AM

Umm.. that has been posted for a long time already. The question is if the Ayes will outnumber the Noes after tonight's session.

Neither result will transform the America's Cup into the MSP Cup.

#121 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 05:20 AM

So between three posters, the pigeon chaser, TC and Rocky, they have 63% of the posts on this stupid thread.

What a waste.



#122 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:03 AM

Groups file appeal of environmental review of America's Cup


KTVU San Francisco
Neighborhood and environmental groups Friday filed an appeal of the final environmental impact report for the America's Cup sailing race in San Francisco, the same day Mayor Ed Lee announced a new development agreement with race organizers. ...
</b>

#123 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:09 AM

So between three posters, the pigeon chaser, TC and Rocky, they have 63% of the posts on this stupid thread.

What a waste.



EXPERT OPINION by --SW SOILER == SOLID WASTE SOILER



#124 CarbonComposite

CarbonComposite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:SFO

Posted 17 December 2011 - 02:40 AM

Groups file appeal of environmental review of America's Cup


KTVU San Francisco
Neighborhood and environmental groups Friday filed an appeal of the final environmental impact report for the America's Cup sailing race in San Francisco, the same day Mayor Ed Lee announced a new development agreement with race organizers. ...
</b>


I guess that means it was approved then?

#125 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:58 AM



Appeal filed that could delay America's Cup planning

San Francisco Chronicle (blog)
The America's Cup could face major delays after a group of environmentalists filed papers this morning in an effort to block the world-famous sailing race from arriving in San Francisco. Four environmental advocates and neighborhood groups are ...


#126 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:21 AM


SF officials approve America's Cup enviro report
The Associated Press

Link


#127 CarbonComposite

CarbonComposite

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Location:SFO

Posted 17 December 2011 - 04:44 PM

Yep, it was approved.

#128 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:22 PM

ENVIRO groups didnt file appeals with official ruling from planning comm so appeal forms are defective until they

amend appeal with the official signed ruling --it isnt a setback



America's Cup opponents hit setback

San Francisco Examiner
On Friday, four community and environmental groups attempted to file an appeal of the Planning Commission's certification of the 2013 regatta's environmental impact review. The groups had hoped to stop the event's permitting process before the Port ...



#129 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:12 AM

T-C and PJF

can someone pass this to cory f --

its the signed ggyc sng documents --he claims are the smoking gun bs --

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST had them and were also partly posted on sa ac

T-C and PJF read them and cite them as you wish as they support the accuracy of both of you and those respected posts

the mob majority is never right





I got delayed tonite by a beautiful woman so I will post complete files tomorrow

cheers






http://decisions.cou...2007015SCIV.pdf





#130 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 09:08 AM

HA ha, I actually read that - it was worth it for the last couple of lines..........

51 Chili beam - Igloo Marine
4 Chili beam - Willow

Essential Race Committee equipment - but only if you know how to use them properly!

Cheers and thanks for the laugh.

#131 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:22 AM

T-C and PJF
can someone pass this to cory f --
the mob majority is never right


Thanks MSP, great find.
I have difficulty thinking Cory Friedman did not know that ?
Question: is he clueless or part of a sham ?
CF is right to say that we don't know who is behind, but we begin to understand who is part of the hoax, which may be part of the answer.

Mob rule ? Stupid W relies on PH opinion, who relies on ccruiser, who himself is wrong on the "non charitable trust".

Speak of a flip flop army.

#132 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:46 AM

Great find?
TC, in case you completely missed it: What MSP posted there strengthens, rather than disproved, CF's observation.

I mistakenly gave him credit since I'd not seen the attachments before now; but they are still unsigned in this link and, importantly to CF's point, make no mention whatsoever of the April 20 date.

#133 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:50 AM

Great find?
TC, in case you completely missed it: What MSP posted there strengthens, rather than disproved, CF's observation.

I mistakenly gave him credit since I'd not seen the attachments before now; but the are still unsigned in this link and, importantly to CF's point, make no mention whatsoever of the April 20 date.

^ Where is the link to his documents, what kind of proof can he provide ? and if he show it, where would it be coming from ?

#134 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 01:25 AM

if it walks and quacks like TC, .... ;)

#135 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:31 AM

T-C and PJF

can someone pass this to cory f --

its the signed ggyc sng documents --he claims are the smoking gun bs --

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST had them and were also partly posted on sa ac

T-C and PJF read them and cite them as you wish as they support the accuracy of both of you and those respected posts

the mob majority is never right





I got delayed tonite by a beautiful woman so I will post complete files tomorrow

cheers






http://decisions.cou...2007015SCIV.pdf





quik post

that link is the only OFFICIAL signatory documents and any others AFTER those submitted and filed with ny court have no legal affect

so those are the final and official versions

and again any amendments are illegal

I posted this issue before

you have to question why ORACLE RACING AND ALINHI are signatories to the settlement agreement and exhibits

when they bmwo or alinghi WERE NOT PARTIES in the lawsuit

another link just signatures 100326 Settlement Agreement - Sig Pages .pdf

a major point and issue the ccruzer/ [OTHER ABA'S ?] missed and the rest of the ggyc cheerleaders=mob

it is clear when the exhibits are read

great posts T-C --PJ F

hilarious to watch ggyc oracaklers running all around HERE with their torches to every post --==PANIC

cheers

#136 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,728 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:32 AM

Still great reading, just how stupid people can be. If the crazed indian has a signed copy of the GGYC/SNG agreement, it proves anybody could have it and destroys one of the cornerstones of CF's arguments that EB is behind the case.

#137 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:35 AM

On a scale of 1 to 10, just how crazy was that post?

'IF' ? He proves nothing again. Lunacy to even try press the non point.

#138 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:11 AM

Pilgrim Scalper should at have checked the content before posting it. Fool on me for originally assuming that he had, fool on TC and SimonN for still clinging to it after it proved pointless..

How freakin' weird can it get around here anyway? :)

#139 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 20 December 2011 - 08:53 AM

Appeal tangles San Francisco's plans for America's Cup



San Francisco Examiner
The appeal against the America's Cup race is by four member groups of the Environmental Council: Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Golden Gate Audubon Society, San Francisco Tomorrow and Waterfront Watch. An appeal of the America's Cupenvironmental impact ...


#140 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:34 PM

As I stated above - that post by MSP was only good for laughs and historic value, anyone thinking it was a smoking-gun had to have been smoke'n something.

Reading comprehension folks - they teach it at school you know!

And as much as you like to see people 'panic'* MSP, I love to see you declare everything ILLEGALPosted Image




* = trying to point out the glaring holes in the latest conspiracy theory in a way that a six year old can comprehend

#141 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:01 PM

MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?

#142 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:53 PM

MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?


T-C

I think if you look at what occurred around that time frame with bmwo and ggyc

the issue will be clear on your question -which is a smart intelligent question btw --if it exists // re- to the april 20th document

cory f has been completely wrong and the cited documents I posted are complete and official --irregardless of the claims by paid posters for ggyc

the whole set of documents with exhibits are the only applicable evidence of the completed settlement by sng / ggyc --FILED WITH THE NYSC

and those posting the bs about the documents from nysc havent understood their authenticity --pity

and many times amended document sections are only initialed as verification of those specific amended sections or pages --of course as its common practice

and for the concurrence and acceptance of them and the wording


T-C you and PJ F keep up the great posts and questions

the ggyc mob is wrong and their panic and negative counter attacks verifies the OUR accuracy and of the complaint against ggyc


cheers

#143 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:10 PM

MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?


The short answer is no, but excellent question though.

Maybe he could ask SNG for them.

#144 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:30 PM


MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?



T-C you and PJ F keep up the great posts and questions

the ggyc mob is wrong and their panic and negative counter attacks verifies the OUR accuracy and of the complaint against ggyc


cheers


Classic....Posted Image

Maybe you three can apply for tribal status now?

#145 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:51 PM



MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?



T-C you and PJ F keep up the trolling and stupid questions

the ggyc mob is wrong and their panic and negative counter attacks verifies the OUR accuracy and of the complaint against ggyc


cheers


Classic....Posted Image

Maybe you three can apply for tribal status now?


They already have it, here




#146 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,798 posts

Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:30 PM



MSP, do have access to the april 20th document, if it exists ?



T-C you and PJ F keep up the great posts and questions

the ggyc mob is wrong and their panic and negative counter attacks verifies the OUR accuracy and of the complaint against ggyc


cheers


Classic....Posted Image

Maybe you three can apply for tribal status now?


Which one of them would be the squaw?

#147 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 21 December 2011 - 02:10 AM

Neighbors and Birdwatchers Hold Up America's Cup Planning


SFist
In a move that should surprise exactly zero people the ambiguously named Environmental Council filed an appeal of the America's Cup environmental impact report last Friday, effectively putting any planning for the 2013 event on hold until the Board of ...


#148 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:40 AM

Great find?
TC, in case you completely missed it: What MSP posted there strengthens, rather than disproved, CF's observation.

I mistakenly gave him credit since I'd not seen the attachments before now; but they are still unsigned in this link and, importantly to CF's point, make no mention whatsoever of the April 20 date.



spinray cant read and I dont want or need his useless pointless credit

see these conditions and it is self explanatory except to the ggyc mad mob


Attached File  SNG VS GGYC SETTLE AGRMNT CON 9.JPG   47.98K   25 downloads

Attached File  SNG VS GGYC SETTLE AGRMNT CON 14.JPG   50.38K   11 downloads

Attached File  SNG VS GGYC SETTLE AGRMNT CON 9.JPG   47.98K   25 downloads

#149 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:08 AM

Is the April 20 date anywhere in your 'useless point credit'?

How did MWE get that date? They got it from nothing you are able to point to or paste, quite obviously.

But no matter - it was to be expected. Shame on me for thinking you'd finally stumbled into something useful.

#150 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 04:24 AM

SR, the only one who mentioned April 20th is Cory F.
First, is it true? MSP says that this is not the date of the final document.
If it is true, how could Cory F know it, if not with GGYC ?

#151 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:06 AM

TC, yes CF probably did see 'April 20' in the suit, and then ask GGYC where the heck that date came from, and so was given that document. He has apparently seen the singed and dated version, unlike us.

He has also seen the '30 questions letter' MWE sent to GGYC back in March when MWE claimed to be representing a foreign challenger. We have not seen that either, CF didn't share it.

#152 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,756 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:48 AM

Wow, this is getting weirder and weirder. CF is a jounalist, so apparently he has his sources. If he is good in what he's doing, he'd try to get his information from GGYC (the easiest way for him) and others he assumes are affected (SNG, Judge Cahn, Judge Kornreich, several lawyers and legal advisers etc.). Maybe only one source answered his requests, that's normal business, and a huge exaggeration to call it "feed". The other ide is free to issue a statement/provide documents as well, and I am sure that CF would be happy to get one.

#153 Albatros

Albatros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,679 posts

Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:40 PM

Wow, this is getting weirder and weirder. CF is a jounalist, so apparently he has his sources. If he is good in what he's doing, he'd try to get his information from GGYC (the easiest way for him) and others he assumes are affected (SNG, Judge Cahn, Judge Kornreich, several lawyers and legal advisers etc.). Maybe only one source answered his requests, that's normal business, and a huge exaggeration to call it "feed". The other ide is free to issue a statement/provide documents as well, and I am sure that CF would be happy to get one.

A feed is a piece of info given to a journo with a specific target, and this one has all appearances of being one, as simple as that, so not really exaggerated.
If this march letter with all those dense questions would have been sent on behalf of the party that is now filing the complaint, it would be relevant. But if it is correct that this march letter was sent on behalf of another party then you have to wonder why this piece of information was released to him, and if you see how he builds his story on it ... tsk tsk, and then there were some criticizing Marian in her time :rolleyes:

#154 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:34 PM


Wow, this is getting weirder and weirder. CF is a jounalist, so apparently he has his sources. If he is good in what he's doing, he'd try to get his information from GGYC (the easiest way for him) and others he assumes are affected (SNG, Judge Cahn, Judge Kornreich, several lawyers and legal advisers etc.). Maybe only one source answered his requests, that's normal business, and a huge exaggeration to call it "feed". The other ide is free to issue a statement/provide documents as well, and I am sure that CF would be happy to get one.

A feed is a piece of info given to a journo with a specific target, and this one has all appearances of being one, as simple as that, so not really exaggerated.
If this march letter with all those dense questions would have been sent on behalf of the party that is now filing the complaint, it would be relevant. But if it is correct that this march letter was sent on behalf of another party then you have to wonder why this piece of information was released to him, and if you see how he builds his story on it ... tsk tsk, and then there were some criticizing Marian in her time :rolleyes:

I hear Fox News are covering the story too. Can't wait.

#155 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:32 AM

Legal Challenge Docks America's Cup


NBC Bay Area
By Chris Roberts Oracle Racing will have to wait for San Francisco lawyering before any America's Cup planning can continue ahead of the planned 2013 races. The boats are in the harbor, but it's the lawyers who will set sail first. ...


#156 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:43 AM

TC, yes CF probably did see 'April 20' in the suit, and then ask GGYC where the heck that date came from, and so was given that document. He has apparently seen the singed and dated version, unlike us.

He has also seen the '30 questions letter' MWE sent to GGYC back in March when MWE claimed to be representing a foreign challenger. We have not seen that either, CF didn't share it.


As some say here this case is weird.
- we still don't know who is behind but GGYC tends, through CF, that it is EB
- CF speaks of confidential documents which he says he did not see but somebody told hin that, we can assume it is coming from GGYC.
- CF pretends the final doc is dated from april 20th, but MSP produced what he says are final documents dated from march.

The questions are:

- were the final doc from april 20th and how would MWE have got it, if not by SNG.

- is the april 20th date an hoax in order to misled MWE into thinking that they do not have the right document and, maybe, in order to make them ask it to SNG ?

Weird case.

#157 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:14 AM


TC, yes CF probably did see 'April 20' in the suit, and then ask GGYC where the heck that date came from, and so was given that document. He has apparently seen the singed and dated version, unlike us.

He has also seen the '30 questions letter' MWE sent to GGYC back in March when MWE claimed to be representing a foreign challenger. We have not seen that either, CF didn't share it.


As some say here this case is weird.
- we still don't know who is behind but GGYC tends, through CF, that it is EB
- CF speaks of confidential documents which he says he did not see but somebody told hin that, we can assume it is coming from GGYC.
- CF pretends the final doc is dated from april 20th, but MSP produced what he says are final documents dated from march.

The questions are:

- were the final doc from april 20th and how would MWE have got it, if not by SNG.

- is the april 20th date an hoax in order to misled MWE into thinking that they do not have the right document and, maybe, in order to make them ask it to SNG ?

Weird case.


T-C

great questions and posts --


[ my bold lg above ] your correct again -and -their wrong ..again

ggyc mob and so called ABA lawyers weighing in here including cory f --missed that the order was TIME STAMPED TWICE

march 29 and april 5 -- see my jpg of that page below

what I posted was the final orders and documents complete with signatures and initialed pages included--



but dumbass spinray and the other oracaklers keep missing the point and details as you see

they dont understand their own pilgrim english --pity

cheers msp

Attached File  SNG VS GGYC SETTLE AGRMNT STIP AND DIS CONT 009 DATES MAR 29 APR 05 .JPG   117.99K   20 downloads

#158 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:31 AM

MSP, what proof can we have that the example you show us is the final one ?

The answer is interesting but would not prove anything as Corie Friedman is very careful to specify he did not see the document; he can say what he wants.

If CF is right, we can have a real link with SNG. If not, could GGYC use him in order to accuse SNG ? could it help them in a court case ? could it be a PR ploy to deflect the cause of the issue ?

Strange.

#159 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:48 AM

MSP, what proof can we have that the example you show us is the final one ?

The answer is interesting but would not prove anything as Corie Friedman is very careful to specify he did not see the document; he can say what he wants.

If CF is right, we can have a real link with SNG. If not, could GGYC use him in order to accuse SNG ? could it help them in a court case ? could it be a PR ploy to deflect the cause of the issue ?

Strange.


T-C

see my new post and the link I posted to that nysc settlement is from the NYSC WEBSITE --again for your data base

http://decisions.cou...2007015SCIV.pdf

read the order and the final disposition

is official like I said

cheers

#160 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 03:57 AM

MSP, on what page do you see the MWE suit's April 20 signature, in your link?

#161 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:59 AM

MSP, on what page do you see the MWE suit's April 20 signature, in your link?


wtf

you still dont have a clue
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#162 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 02:25 PM

MSP, on what page do you see the MWE suit's April 20 signature, in your link?


SR, good question but, if we understand MSP point, maybe we could ask it to CF ?

#163 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 05:41 PM

There's no need to ask anyone - well maybe ask yourselves how you can blow so much hot air but spend so little time ascertaining the facts.



The document that has the incriminating date is clearly described by MWE - on page 6/35 here: https://iapps.courts...g==&system=prod

It's the date on the so called "Assignment and Acceptance" document that pertians only to the handing over of the Cup and all the little broken bits.


As clearly stated in MSP's 'Holy official NYSC agreement': http://decisions.cou...2007015SCIV.pdf, (it's point 1 of the agreement actually - on page 5/31), this "Assignment and Acceptance" document was to be executed by GGYC only after it had got all the bits back from SNG.



Embarrassingly simple really for those that can read and not just rant or C&P

#164 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 06:11 PM

Thanks Nav, that could be interesting and, true, save some post. However your links do not work, do you have another one ?

#165 Rennmaus

Rennmaus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,756 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 06:12 PM

Thanks Nav, that could be interesting and, true, save some post. However your links do not work, do you have another one ?


https://iapps.courts...g==&system=prod

or here

http://www.4shared.com/office/o8IWViH8/document.html

#166 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 06:28 PM

Thanks Rennmaus.

In fact we were induced in error by this comment from CF: "I could be wrong. If anyone has copies of the final versions, I would like to see them."

Questions remains:

1. Who has this document: GGYC, SNG, NYYC ? Could MWE have got it from NYYC ?
2. Could the firm have quoted the last document based on a previous one knowing it was not alterated later ?

Interesting.

#167 nav

nav

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,022 posts

Posted 22 December 2011 - 06:53 PM

I think that Rennmause has the first link covered, thanks - that's the new MWE complaint.

The second is the 'Peace Treaty' in which GGYC and SNG agreed to halt hostilities, MSP has posted it a few times - not sure why those links didn't work - sorry, my bad.


* also the "Agreement and Acceptance" covers the whole Enchilada, ie. acceptance of GS's conditions to proceed as the new Trustee - in this case it was just conditional on all the Cup bits being handed over within 10 days of the Court Agreement.

In AC terms it's more important than the 'Peace Treaty'.

It's not a secret document and it's content is specified in the DOG (and repeated in the Peace Treaty).

#168 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:24 PM

Thanks Rennmaus.

In fact we were induced in error by this comment from CF: "I could be wrong. If anyone has copies of the final versions, I would like to see them."

Questions remains:

1. Who has this document: GGYC, SNG, NYYC ? Could MWE have got it from NYYC ?
2. Could the firm have quoted the last document based on a previous one knowing it was not alterated later ?

Interesting.

This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?

Or this all-american fwit?



#169 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 23 December 2011 - 12:21 AM

This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?



Huh? Sometimes I have to admit what you say makes no sense to me (and I can't ignore it). GGYC knows exactly where the copies are as they had to provide one to the NYYC. So, either CF didn't talk to them or, as I'm sure you'll infer, the nefarious GGYC LIED to CF in an attempt to get him to print their propaganda blaming SNG.

CF is likely correct that a law firm would not put a quote of a document that wasn't final in their filing, but missed the other possibility for where a copy came from (NYYC). Of course, I don't know where it came from, nor do I really care. I do think that CF might have been too quick to point the finger of suspicion at SNG, but it's not like there is any love lost between them and GGYC, which makes them an easy target.

As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

#170 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 12:44 AM

As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.


I don't think MSP ever said that. NYYC could be an independant trustee. However, even this possibility could be a bit of a stretch.

#171 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 23 December 2011 - 01:37 AM


As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.


I don't think MSP ever said that. NYYC could be an independant trustee. However, even this possibility could be a bit of a stretch.


T-C


nyyc does want the AC TRUST back and doesnt want what I have discovered about nyyc to be reported to feds and made public

I inferred that NYYC wants the ac back --in a prior post --if teal is referring to me as the ''someone ''.....



I posted I have met with some NYYC members in person and I know they are /were concerned with my ''digging ''into their illegal / non-compliant history

which was confirmed by some of the best experienced ISAF / AC law firms

and a judge and 2 trust law firms who I know -and work with

all of those ''nyyc member '' meetings and discussions including emails will probably have to be documented and filed with the nysc

and verified /signed under oath by me / AC TRUST

nyyc must be concerned otherwise why else would they have have communicated with me on that and the AMERICA'S CUP TRUST

now I have to type that these members never said they ''were representing '' nyyc

I can identify them from nyyc ''function'' fotos as I didnt know them prior to the meetings and emails

as far as I can tell nyyc wants the federal trust documents I have for the AC TRUST

but so does ehman and evilsin - both nyyc members -or were

all this confirmed many times

and if nyyc had administered their nyyc a charitable trust -LEGALLY --they wouldnt have lost the AC TRUST in the first place

so nyyc is out of the picture as nyyc can never be trusted with it again .period

and I didnt except any of the ''nyyc member deal'' offers

again why would they -members of nyyc be meeting with me -

all the discussions were mainly about the AC TRUST and not ''damaging'' nyyc

its all going to be documented and filed in nysc and federal court -the proper venue

ask cory f if he is a member of nyyc ....

cheers



#172 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 01:56 AM



This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?



Huh? Sometimes I have to admit what you say makes no sense to me (and I can't ignore it). GGYC knows exactly where the copies are as they had to provide one to the NYYC. So, either CF didn't talk to them or, as I'm sure you'll infer, the nefarious GGYC LIED to CF in an attempt to get him to print their propaganda blaming SNG.

CF is likely correct that a law firm would not put a quote of a document that wasn't final in their filing, but missed the other possibility for where a copy came from (NYYC). Of course, I don't know where it came from, nor do I really care. I do think that CF might have been too quick to point the finger of suspicion at SNG, but it's not like there is any love lost between them and GGYC, which makes them an easy target.

As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Well said.

The big 'blur' of revolutions on the MWE power meter bill that CF alludes to does suggest a wealthy interest; but it being someone with the influence to get SNG cooperative, or NYYC cooperative, is a wide net to cast. And still would not prove complicity; either club may have responded out of courtesy, unlike how GGYC apparently did when confronted with similar questions in the March 'interrogation' letter that CF refers to. NYYC, out of just customary procedure to respond to such information requests, or else through MWE connections, strikes me as the more likely source for MWE's information on the point. I'm surprised CF did not consider it, assuming he had no good reason to dismiss the possibility; which, with him being probably a member, he might have had given more time. It's not like CF has the time/billable hours luxury to put the attention to it that all those MWE signatories had.

#173 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 23 December 2011 - 02:15 AM



This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?


Huh? Sometimes I have to admit what you say makes no sense to me (and I can't ignore it). GGYC knows exactly where the copies are as they had to provide one to the NYYC. So, either CF didn't talk to them or, as I'm sure you'll infer, the nefarious GGYC LIED to CF in an attempt to get him to print their propaganda blaming SNG.

CF is likely correct that a law firm would not put a quote of a document that wasn't final in their filing, but missed the other possibility for where a copy came from (NYYC). Of course, I don't know where it came from, nor do I really care. I do think that CF might have been too quick to point the finger of suspicion at SNG, but it's not like there is any love lost between them and GGYC, which makes them an easy target.

As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Well said.

The big 'blur' of revolutions on the MWE power meter bill that CF alludes to does suggest a wealthy interest; but it being someone with the influence to get SNG cooperative, or NYYC cooperative, is a wide net to cast. And still would not prove complicity; either club may have responded out of courtesy, unlike how GGYC apparently did when confronted with similar questions in the March 'interrogation' letter that CF refers to. NYYC, out of just customary procedure to respond to such information requests, or else through MWE connections, strikes me as the more likely source for MWE's information on the point. I'm surprised CF did not consider it, assuming he had no good reason to dismiss the possibility; which, with him being probably a member, he might have had given more time. It's not like CF has the time/billable hours luxury to put the attention to it that all those MWE signatories had.


spinray --all your bs spin above hilarious

but dont feel left out I found something thats right up your alley --and you can spin your yarns

Moby Dick production searching for sailors

Calgary Herald
Rope and/or rigging skills, both sailing and theatrical, considered an asset — but no previous whaling experience required. A small honorarium will be provided to those selected. They must be available for rehearsals throughout January as well, ...

#174 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 02:28 AM

Capt Kahab would be a great role to play, count me in.

Could get me a couple of million dollar AC45's, a million on top of that, a delay of AC34 until 2015, and a leading role on that world stage if I feign the missing leg anguish and pain convincingly enough ;)

#175 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 04:45 AM


Thanks Rennmaus.

In fact we were induced in error by this comment from CF: "I could be wrong. If anyone has copies of the final versions, I would like to see them."

Questions remains:

1. Who has this document: GGYC, SNG, NYYC ? Could MWE have got it from NYYC ?
2. Could the firm have quoted the last document based on a previous one knowing it was not alterated later ?

Interesting.

This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?

It looks likes Cory Friedman does not know more his classics: Louis Bonapatre

#176 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 23 December 2011 - 06:14 AM




This is what CF wrote:

"It would be unusual for a firm like McDermott Will to quote from a document without seeing the final version. Nor would they know the execution date without access to the final versions or access to someone with access.

GGYC would have no reason to provide those documents to McDermott Will. That leaves only SNG, unless someone else has the documents."

Where did he get this half-witted nonsense from? GGYC?


Huh? Sometimes I have to admit what you say makes no sense to me (and I can't ignore it). GGYC knows exactly where the copies are as they had to provide one to the NYYC. So, either CF didn't talk to them or, as I'm sure you'll infer, the nefarious GGYC LIED to CF in an attempt to get him to print their propaganda blaming SNG.

CF is likely correct that a law firm would not put a quote of a document that wasn't final in their filing, but missed the other possibility for where a copy came from (NYYC). Of course, I don't know where it came from, nor do I really care. I do think that CF might have been too quick to point the finger of suspicion at SNG, but it's not like there is any love lost between them and GGYC, which makes them an easy target.

As for someone's 'claim' that NYYC wants to get the cup back through a BofD claim, that seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Well said.

The big 'blur' of revolutions on the MWE power meter bill that CF alludes to does suggest a wealthy interest; but it being someone with the influence to get SNG cooperative, or NYYC cooperative, is a wide net to cast. And still would not prove complicity; either club may have responded out of courtesy, unlike how GGYC apparently did when confronted with similar questions in the March 'interrogation' letter that CF refers to. NYYC, out of just customary procedure to respond to such information requests, or else through MWE connections, strikes me as the more likely source for MWE's information on the point. I'm surprised CF did not consider it, assuming he had no good reason to dismiss the possibility; which, with him being probably a member, he might have had given more time. It's not like CF has the time/billable hours luxury to put the attention to it that all those MWE signatories had.


spinray --all your bs spin above hilarious

but dont feel left out I found something thats right up your alley --and you can spin your yarns


Three plus years of your bullshit posts being consistently wrong, ahem... CONSISTENTLY WRONG (cap locks for your benefit), and now you pound your chest as if you've found the holy grail. Fat chance Kimosabe, keep trying.

I love to break it to you, you DIDN'T (cap locks for your benefit), and should go back to your tepee with TC and pop another peyote button.



#177 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 23 December 2011 - 02:23 PM

Doubts remain over Naples staging America's Cup World Series regatta

The Independent

Further doubt over the viability of staging the next America's Cup World Series regatta in Naples next April was cast by the decision to unload all the boats and equipment in Valencia instead of taking it to Naples this weekend. ...


#178 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 23 December 2011 - 08:06 PM


T-C


nyyc does want the AC TRUST back and doesnt want what I have discovered about nyyc to be reported to feds and made public

I inferred that NYYC wants the ac back --in a prior post --if teal is referring to me as the ''someone ''.....


I posted I have met with some NYYC members in person and I know they are /were concerned with my ''digging ''into their illegal / non-compliant history

which was confirmed by some of the best experienced ISAF / AC law firms

and a judge and 2 trust law firms who I know -and work with

all of those ''nyyc member '' meetings and discussions including emails will probably have to be documented and filed with the nysc

and verified /signed under oath by me / AC TRUST

nyyc must be concerned otherwise why else would they have have communicated with me on that and the AMERICA'S CUP TRUST

now I have to type that these members never said they ''were representing '' nyyc

I can identify them from nyyc ''function'' fotos as I didnt know them prior to the meetings and emails

as far as I can tell nyyc wants the federal trust documents I have for the AC TRUST

but so does ehman and evilsin - both nyyc members -or were

all this confirmed many times

and if nyyc had administered their nyyc a charitable trust -LEGALLY --they wouldnt have lost the AC TRUST in the first place

so nyyc is out of the picture as nyyc can never be trusted with it again .period

and I didnt except any of the ''nyyc member deal'' offers

again why would they -members of nyyc be meeting with me -

all the discussions were mainly about the AC TRUST and not ''damaging'' nyyc

its all going to be documented and filed in nysc and federal court -the proper venue

ask cory f if he is a member of nyyc ....

cheers


MSP,

You continue to go on about this AC TRUST thing as if it had real meaning. Your AC TRUST holds no claim whatsoever to ". . . the Cup won by the yacht America at Cowes, England, on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one . . ." (it's description in the DoG). The cup was not even known as "The America's Cup" when the Schuyler turned it over to the NYYC under the terms of the DoG. Over 100 years later, you created a trust out of thin air (I assume with the hopes of muddying the waters and somehow getting a seat at the table).


If your trust is as valid as you have been stating, why have you not filed your action in the years that you have been going on and on and on about it? You've been threatening it since before AC33. Personally, I think the fact of the matter is that you recognize you have no standing regarding the "Auld Mug" and your claims will not hold up.


You also go on unrelentingly about how everything is illegal regarding the cup and everyone has broken the law by the way that the have done everything related to the cup. You claim that the clubs that have owned the cup (and under the terms of the DoG, they do OWN the cup) have somehow done something illegal by possibly profiting from holding the match (or the cup). The DoG, that governs the ownership of cup, only requires that the club expose the cup to challenges and if a valid challenger comes along, hold a match either through mutual consent or the default terms. The DoG does not preclude a club from charging the public to see the spectacle. It does not preclude them from finding corporate saps to sponsor the match. It does not preclude the club from making money holding the match.


It seems to me that the idea of preventing the owning club from garnering a profit by holding the match could just as easily be construed to prevent a club from increasing their membership (or dues) because their prestige has gone up due to being the current owner of the cup. I don't think that premise would get to far in court.


I can imagine the argument in court:


Attorney for plaintiff: "Your honor, GGYC used their ownership of the Cup to unjustly profit by increasing the membership rolls and upping their dues after they won the cup. We demand that the ownership of cup be given to someone else (preferable MSP) and that GGYC have to evenly divide those new members and their money to the cup beneficiaries."


Attorney for GGYC: "Huh?"


Judge (after picking himself up off the floor where he could be heard laughing hysterically): "Case dismissed"


So much of this discussion about the "trust" is just nonsense. The only thing the DoG controls is a ugly silver pitcher. That piece of hardware was GIVEN to the NYYC and ownership, as stated in the DoG, resides with the club. The club may continue to OWN the cup as long as they meet the terms of the DoG. Nothing else.


At some point, one of these billionaire idiots with too much time and money is going to push this thing in court and the NYSC is going to basically tell them to go pound salt. They will be told that the NYSC is there to resolve the sporting issues related to the cup and that's it. Basically, the only thing you can argue about a BoFD is if they are breaking the terms of the DoG. If the NYSC tells GGYC they must sail a match and GGYC refuses to do so, then the court will consider them in breach and deal with the cup accordingly. Until then, carry on gentlemen (don't forget to leave your filing fees at the door).


I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.


If the clubs, or the entities that they create to manage/hold the races, can make money, the state and the courts just don't care. As long as everyone properly reports their income to the IRS (and pay any applicable taxes), I figure the government will be happy.

#179 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 01:25 AM


T-C


nyyc does want the AC TRUST back and doesnt want what I have discovered about nyyc to be reported to feds and made public

I inferred that NYYC wants the ac back --in a prior post --if teal is referring to me as the ''someone ''.....


I posted I have met with some NYYC members in person and I know they are /were concerned with my ''digging ''into their illegal / non-compliant history

which was confirmed by some of the best experienced ISAF / AC law firms

and a judge and 2 trust law firms who I know -and work with

all of those ''nyyc member '' meetings and discussions including emails will probably have to be documented and filed with the nysc

and verified /signed under oath by me / AC TRUST

nyyc must be concerned otherwise why else would they have have communicated with me on that and the AMERICA'S CUP TRUST

now I have to type that these members never said they ''were representing '' nyyc

I can identify them from nyyc ''function'' fotos as I didnt know them prior to the meetings and emails

as far as I can tell nyyc wants the federal trust documents I have for the AC TRUST

but so does ehman and evilsin - both nyyc members -or were

all this confirmed many times

and if nyyc had administered their nyyc a charitable trust -LEGALLY --they wouldnt have lost the AC TRUST in the first place

so nyyc is out of the picture as nyyc can never be trusted with it again .period

and I didnt except any of the ''nyyc member deal'' offers

again why would they -members of nyyc be meeting with me -

all the discussions were mainly about the AC TRUST and not ''damaging'' nyyc

its all going to be documented and filed in nysc and federal court -the proper venue

ask cory f if he is a member of nyyc ....

cheers


MSP,

You continue to go on about this AC TRUST thing as if it had real meaning. Your AC TRUST holds no claim whatsoever to ". . . the Cup won by the yacht America at Cowes, England, on the twenty-second day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one . . ." (it's description in the DoG). The cup was not even known as "The America's Cup" when the Schuyler turned it over to the NYYC under the terms of the DoG. Over 100 years later, you created a trust out of thin air (I assume with the hopes of muddying the waters and somehow getting a seat at the table).

If your trust is as valid as you have been stating, why have you not filed your action in the years that you have been going on and on and on about it? You've been threatening it since before AC33. Personally, I think the fact of the matter is that you recognize you have no standing regarding the "Auld Mug" and your claims will not hold up.

You also go on unrelentingly about how everything is illegal regarding the cup and everyone has broken the law by the way that the have done everything related to the cup. You claim that the clubs that have owned the cup (and under the terms of the DoG, they do OWN the cup) have somehow done something illegal by possibly profiting from holding the match (or the cup). The DoG, that governs the ownership of cup, only requires that the club expose the cup to challenges and if a valid challenger comes along, hold a match either through mutual consent or the default terms. The DoG does not preclude a club from charging the public to see the spectacle. It does not preclude them from finding corporate saps to sponsor the match. It does not preclude the club from making money holding the match.

It seems to me that the idea of preventing the owning club from garnering a profit by holding the match could just as easily be construed to prevent a club from increasing their membership (or dues) because their prestige has gone up due to being the current owner of the cup. I don't think that premise would get to far in court.

I can imagine the argument in court:

Attorney for plaintiff: "Your honor, GGYC used their ownership of the Cup to unjustly profit by increasing the membership rolls and upping their dues after they won the cup. We demand that the ownership of cup be given to someone else (preferable MSP) and that GGYC have to evenly divide those new members and their money to the cup beneficiaries."

Attorney for GGYC: "Huh?"

Judge (after picking himself up off the floor where he could be heard laughing hysterically): "Case dismissed"

So much of this discussion about the "trust" is just nonsense. The only thing the DoG controls is a ugly silver pitcher. That piece of hardware was GIVEN to the NYYC and ownership, as stated in the DoG, resides with the club. The club may continue to OWN the cup as long as they meet the terms of the DoG. Nothing else.

At some point, one of these billionaire idiots with too much time and money is going to push this thing in court and the NYSC is going to basically tell them to go pound salt. They will be told that the NYSC is there to resolve the sporting issues related to the cup and that's it. Basically, the only thing you can argue about a BoFD is if they are breaking the terms of the DoG. If the NYSC tells GGYC they must sail a match and GGYC refuses to do so, then the court will consider them in breach and deal with the cup accordingly. Until then, carry on gentlemen (don't forget to leave your filing fees at the door).

I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.

If the clubs, or the entities that they create to manage/hold the races, can make money, the state and the courts just don't care. As long as everyone properly reports their income to the IRS (and pay any applicable taxes), I figure the government will be happy.


your welcome to express --your opinion --and thanks for expressing it - its just your opinion tho and you arent in the proceedings -

i will respond to this part of your post [red below ]

/// I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.

teal ---the MAIN problem with your opinion you state above is that it isnt what has happened in ny courts and it isnt what the federal and state laws require

so your opinion is wrongly interpreting the ny laws -ag's office and duties

I will demonstrate this by citing for you the actual appearance by nyag on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries because the

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST is a charitable trust

so in reviewing the actual evidence from caption of that case

you and your opinion is wrong or inaccurate --or do you have another spin --ready or rebuttal --

thanks for sharing



///MERCURY BAY v. SAN DIEGO
76 N.Y.2d 256 (1990)

Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc., Appellant,v.San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent, et al., Defendant. New York Yacht Club, Intervenor.In the Matter of San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent. Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.



Court of Appeals of the State of New York.



Argued February 8, 1990.

Decided April 26, 1990.


Robert B. Fiske, Jr., George N. Tompkins, Jr., James L. Kerr, Morris H. Wheeler, Ivor Wolk, John M. Boyle, Thomas J. Whalen, Diane Westwood Wilson and Deborah A. Elsasser for appellant.

Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Mark W. Smith, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Poovey, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, James E. Brandt and Blair Axel for San Diego Yacht Club, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (David G. Samuels, O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn andPamela A. Mann for the Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries, respondent.



James W. Rayhill and Richard M. Waldron for New York Yacht Club, intervenor.

Michael D. Hess and Marjorie L. Cohen for Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia (Inc.), defendant.

Leonard Garment for Robert N. Bavier, Jr., and others, amici curiae.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE and BELLACOSA concur with Judge ALEXANDER; Chief Judge WACHTLER concurs in a separate opinion; Judge HANCOCK, JR., dissents and votes to reverse in another opinion in which Judge TITONE concurs.



#180 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 December 2011 - 02:35 PM

your welcome to express --your opinion --and thanks for expressing it - its just your opinion tho and you arent in the proceedings -

i will respond to this part of your post [red below ]

/// I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.

teal ---the MAIN problem with your opinion you state above is that it isnt what has happened in ny courts and it isnt what the federal and state laws require

so your opinion is wrongly interpreting the ny laws -ag's office and duties

I will demonstrate this by citing for you the actual appearance by nyag on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries because the

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST is a charitable trust

so in reviewing the actual evidence from caption of that case

you and your opinion is wrong or inaccurate --or do you have another spin --ready or rebuttal --

thanks for sharing



///MERCURY BAY v. SAN DIEGO
76 N.Y.2d 256 (1990)

Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc., Appellant,v.San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent, et al., Defendant. New York Yacht Club, Intervenor.In the Matter of San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent. Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.



Court of Appeals of the State of New York.



Argued February 8, 1990.

Decided April 26, 1990.


Robert B. Fiske, Jr., George N. Tompkins, Jr., James L. Kerr, Morris H. Wheeler, Ivor Wolk, John M. Boyle, Thomas J. Whalen, Diane Westwood Wilson and Deborah A. Elsasser for appellant.

Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Mark W. Smith, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Poovey, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, James E. Brandt and Blair Axel for San Diego Yacht Club, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (David G. Samuels, O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn andPamela A. Mann for the Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries, respondent.



James W. Rayhill and Richard M. Waldron for New York Yacht Club, intervenor.

Michael D. Hess and Marjorie L. Cohen for Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia (Inc.), defendant.

Leonard Garment for Robert N. Bavier, Jr., and others, amici curiae.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE and BELLACOSA concur with Judge ALEXANDER; Chief Judge WACHTLER concurs in a separate opinion; Judge HANCOCK, JR., dissents and votes to reverse in another opinion in which Judge TITONE concurs.



Hmmm, the 1990 case of Mercury Bay vs. SDYC. As I recall this case was about the whether or not the MATCH was in conformance with the DoG. I don't recall their even being a claim by Mercury Bay of BoFD by SDYC.

I also don't recall the AG chiming in during the last go-round (either RNZYS vs. SNG or GGYC vs. SNG) when there were claims of BoFD. I don't see them rushing into the breach to get involved with your basic claims that all of the yacht clubs that have owned the trophy failed in their fiduciary duties by illegally trying to make money because they own the trophy.

Of course, the AG was also involved in the modification of the DoG in the 1950's and again in the 1980's (the first to allow smaller yachts and eliminate sailing to the match, the second to allow racing in the summer in the southern hemisphere). However, as I seem to recall, you have claimed that that was an illegal modification to the DoG which would infer that the AG has breached their fiduciary duty.

As to the cup being a "Charitable Trust", it is a trust of a single item -- the trophy won by America in 1851. The terms of the "Charitable Trust" are the terms of the DoG. The "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are the eligible challenger of foreign yacht clubs (and in this case, Mercury Bay). The only benefit that those "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are entitled to is a match to win the trophy in accordance with the terms of the DoG.

#181 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 24 December 2011 - 04:15 PM


your welcome to express --your opinion --and thanks for expressing it - its just your opinion tho and you arent in the proceedings -

i will respond to this part of your post [red below ]

/// I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.

teal ---the MAIN problem with your opinion you state above is that it isnt what has happened in ny courts and it isnt what the federal and state laws require

so your opinion is wrongly interpreting the ny laws -ag's office and duties

I will demonstrate this by citing for you the actual appearance by nyag on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries because the

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST is a charitable trust

so in reviewing the actual evidence from caption of that case

you and your opinion is wrong or inaccurate --or do you have another spin --ready or rebuttal --

thanks for sharing



///MERCURY BAY v. SAN DIEGO
76 N.Y.2d 256 (1990)

Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc., Appellant,v.San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent, et al., Defendant. New York Yacht Club, Intervenor.In the Matter of San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent. Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.



Court of Appeals of the State of New York.



Argued February 8, 1990.

Decided April 26, 1990.


Robert B. Fiske, Jr., George N. Tompkins, Jr., James L. Kerr, Morris H. Wheeler, Ivor Wolk, John M. Boyle, Thomas J. Whalen, Diane Westwood Wilson and Deborah A. Elsasser for appellant.

Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Mark W. Smith, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Poovey, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, James E. Brandt and Blair Axel for San Diego Yacht Club, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (David G. Samuels, O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn andPamela A. Mann for the Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries, respondent.



James W. Rayhill and Richard M. Waldron for New York Yacht Club, intervenor.

Michael D. Hess and Marjorie L. Cohen for Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia (Inc.), defendant.

Leonard Garment for Robert N. Bavier, Jr., and others, amici curiae.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE and BELLACOSA concur with Judge ALEXANDER; Chief Judge WACHTLER concurs in a separate opinion; Judge HANCOCK, JR., dissents and votes to reverse in another opinion in which Judge TITONE concurs.



Hmmm, the 1990 case of Mercury Bay vs. SDYC. As I recall this case was about the whether or not the MATCH was in conformance with the DoG. I don't recall their even being a claim by Mercury Bay of BoFD by SDYC.

I also don't recall the AG chiming in during the last go-round (either RNZYS vs. SNG or GGYC vs. SNG) when there were claims of BoFD. I don't see them rushing into the breach to get involved with your basic claims that all of the yacht clubs that have owned the trophy failed in their fiduciary duties by illegally trying to make money because they own the trophy.

Of course, the AG was also involved in the modification of the DoG in the 1950's and again in the 1980's (the first to allow smaller yachts and eliminate sailing to the match, the second to allow racing in the summer in the southern hemisphere). However, as I seem to recall, you have claimed that that was an illegal modification to the DoG which would infer that the AG has breached their fiduciary duty.

As to the cup being a "Charitable Trust", it is a trust of a single item -- the trophy won by America in 1851. The terms of the "Charitable Trust" are the terms of the DoG. The "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are the eligible challenger of foreign yacht clubs (and in this case, Mercury Bay). The only benefit that those "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are entitled to is a match to win the trophy in accordance with the terms of the DoG.

We just went through all this stuff. Were you not reading? Mercury Bay decision confirmed AC trust status as charitable. That's what it is until the court decides otherwise. Take a look.

#182 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 04:37 PM



your welcome to express --your opinion --and thanks for expressing it - its just your opinion tho and you arent in the proceedings -

i will respond to this part of your post [red below ]

/// I also suspect that the reason the NYAG does not get involved in any of this is because he recognizes that the NYSC and the role of the state in the "America's Cup" is simply that of referee. They don't take sides in this BoFD stuff because the only fiduciary duty is to run a fair match and abide by the terms of the DoG.

teal ---the MAIN problem with your opinion you state above is that it isnt what has happened in ny courts and it isnt what the federal and state laws require

so your opinion is wrongly interpreting the ny laws -ag's office and duties

I will demonstrate this by citing for you the actual appearance by nyag on behalf of the ultimate beneficiaries because the

AMERICA'S CUP TRUST is a charitable trust

so in reviewing the actual evidence from caption of that case

you and your opinion is wrong or inaccurate --or do you have another spin --ready or rebuttal --

thanks for sharing



///MERCURY BAY v. SAN DIEGO
76 N.Y.2d 256 (1990)

Mercury Bay Boating Club Inc., Appellant,v.San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent, et al., Defendant. New York Yacht Club, Intervenor.In the Matter of San Diego Yacht Club, Respondent. Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.



Court of Appeals of the State of New York.



Argued February 8, 1990.

Decided April 26, 1990.


Robert B. Fiske, Jr., George N. Tompkins, Jr., James L. Kerr, Morris H. Wheeler, Ivor Wolk, John M. Boyle, Thomas J. Whalen, Diane Westwood Wilson and Deborah A. Elsasser for appellant.

Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Mark W. Smith, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, Kenneth M. Poovey, of the California Bar, admitted pro hac vice, James E. Brandt and Blair Axel for San Diego Yacht Club, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (David G. Samuels, O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn andPamela A. Mann for the Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries, respondent.



James W. Rayhill and Richard M. Waldron for New York Yacht Club, intervenor.

Michael D. Hess and Marjorie L. Cohen for Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia (Inc.), defendant.

Leonard Garment for Robert N. Bavier, Jr., and others, amici curiae.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE and BELLACOSA concur with Judge ALEXANDER; Chief Judge WACHTLER concurs in a separate opinion; Judge HANCOCK, JR., dissents and votes to reverse in another opinion in which Judge TITONE concurs.



Hmmm, the 1990 case of Mercury Bay vs. SDYC. As I recall this case was about the whether or not the MATCH was in conformance with the DoG. I don't recall their even being a claim by Mercury Bay of BoFD by SDYC.

I also don't recall the AG chiming in during the last go-round (either RNZYS vs. SNG or GGYC vs. SNG) when there were claims of BoFD. I don't see them rushing into the breach to get involved with your basic claims that all of the yacht clubs that have owned the trophy failed in their fiduciary duties by illegally trying to make money because they own the trophy.

Of course, the AG was also involved in the modification of the DoG in the 1950's and again in the 1980's (the first to allow smaller yachts and eliminate sailing to the match, the second to allow racing in the summer in the southern hemisphere). However, as I seem to recall, you have claimed that that was an illegal modification to the DoG which would infer that the AG has breached their fiduciary duty.

As to the cup being a "Charitable Trust", it is a trust of a single item -- the trophy won by America in 1851. The terms of the "Charitable Trust" are the terms of the DoG. The "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are the eligible challenger of foreign yacht clubs (and in this case, Mercury Bay). The only benefit that those "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are entitled to is a match to win the trophy in accordance with the terms of the DoG.

We just went through all this stuff. Were you not reading? Mercury Bay decision confirmed AC trust status as charitable. That's what it is until the court decides otherwise. Take a look.


PJ F thats right on the ''money '' of course your correct in your posts as well as T-C

NYSC did confirm the ac trust and the charitable trust status and why nyag appeared for ultimate benes of ac trust

and now us dept of treasury has certified the ac trust -who have the real jurisdiction and authority -

teal appears to be piece mealing the concurances after he claims against my posts then when teal is proven wrong inches to right side like

it was his accurate info --whatever

what is interesting is NYYC intervened which

shows their desires to get ac back

cheers

exhibit from case caption

James W. Rayhill

and

Richard M. Waldron

for New York Yacht Club, intervenor.



#183 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 December 2011 - 04:51 PM

We just went through all this stuff. Were you not reading? Mercury Bay decision confirmed AC trust status as charitable. That's what it is until the court decides otherwise. Take a look.


What AC Trust? The entity known as the AC Trust is MSP's made up trust. It was not involved in Mercury Bay vs. SDYC.

The charitable trust that owns the Cup is based upon the DoG. When that trust was created there was no such thing as the America's Cup. There might be a "Trust under the Deed of Gift from George Schuyler to the NYYC" or some such legal entity registered in the state of NY which it is listed as a charitable trust, but the "Charitable" part is simply a legal bucket that the thing falls under. The only thing in the trust is the cup and the only charitable requirement is holding a match.

Why do so many people keep trying to make this into something it is not? The cup was a gift from Schuyler to the NYYC. He basically said, "You guys can have the cup we won from the Brits if you promise to put it up for a challenge under these terms and require the winner of the challenge to sign an agreement saying they will abide by the same terms in perpetuity." End of trust, end of gift.

He didn't name it the "America's Cup". He didn't create "The America's Cup Trust for the Benefit of Foreign Yacht Clubs". Schuyler gave a piece of silver as gift to the club with set of terms that they must agree to (or return the cup to his heirs or assigns). That's what makes it a charitable trust.

If someone wins the cup and wants to try to make money trying to run the matches, have at it. there is nothing in the DoG that prohibits that. I sincerely doubt there is anything in NY or US law that prohibits the owner of the cup from trying to sell tickets to the event (and keeping the profit). The fact that a club successfully manages to do that does affect a challengers "rights" as a beneficiary of the cup. The foreign yacht club benefit is getting to challenge. End of benefits. The only BoFD possible is if the club that owns the cup fails to follow the terms of the DoG.

#184 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:01 PM


We just went through all this stuff. Were you not reading? Mercury Bay decision confirmed AC trust status as charitable. That's what it is until the court decides otherwise. Take a look.


What AC Trust? The entity known as the AC Trust is MSP's made up trust. It was not involved in Mercury Bay vs. SDYC.

The charitable trust that owns the Cup is based upon the DoG. When that trust was created there was no such thing as the America's Cup. There might be a "Trust under the Deed of Gift from George Schuyler to the NYYC" or some such legal entity registered in the state of NY which it is listed as a charitable trust, but the "Charitable" part is simply a legal bucket that the thing falls under. The only thing in the trust is the cup and the only charitable requirement is holding a match.

Why do so many people keep trying to make this into something it is not? The cup was a gift from Schuyler to the NYYC. He basically said, "You guys can have the cup we won from the Brits if you promise to put it up for a challenge under these terms and require the winner of the challenge to sign an agreement saying they will abide by the same terms in perpetuity." End of trust, end of gift.

He didn't name it the "America's Cup". He didn't create "The America's Cup Trust for the Benefit of Foreign Yacht Clubs". Schuyler gave a piece of silver as gift to the club with set of terms that they must agree to (or return the cup to his heirs or assigns). That's what makes it a charitable trust.

If someone wins the cup and wants to try to make money trying to run the matches, have at it. there is nothing in the DoG that prohibits that. I sincerely doubt there is anything in NY or US law that prohibits the owner of the cup from trying to sell tickets to the event (and keeping the profit). The fact that a club successfully manages to do that does affect a challengers "rights" as a beneficiary of the cup. The foreign yacht club benefit is getting to challenge. End of benefits. The only BoFD possible is if the club that owns the cup fails to follow the terms of the DoG.


teal

here is a copy of the 2nd confirmation as it appears you lost your copy

notice my name has ttee in IRS DEPT OF TREASURY TERMS as TRUSTEE

and why NYYC was my new friend besides others

now you and others can spew about its nothing

but just think of the process that I went thru to get the us federal dept of treasury to register the ac trust

which nyyc or any one else was able or wanted to do

so just having the exact name is proof

cheers

btw dont send me any packages there it shows my old address

Attached File  AC TRUST IRS CONFIRMATION AND 2 ND VERIFICATION NAME AND NUMBER 01.JPG   71.72K   20 downloads


#185 scassani

scassani

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:01 PM

Teal67 posts: "As to the cup being a "Charitable Trust", it is a trust of a single item -- the trophy won by America in 1851. The terms of the "Charitable Trust" are the terms of the DoG. The "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are the eligible challenger of foreign yacht clubs (and in this case, Mercury Bay). The only benefit that those "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are entitled to is a match to win the trophy in accordance with the terms of the DoG."

I'll continue on my own since I may be taking Teal67's comment in a direction he does not mean it to go. Talk of beneficiaries to the charitable trust Schuyler asked that the New York court create does not carry the implication MSP's arguments concerning breach require. Schuyler sought a trust as a means in the law to assure that the competition he and others had enjoyed would continue in perpetuity. He asked the Court to recognize a committment to future participation that would assure another competition for the Cup, no matter the circumstances of the competition underway or its outcome. For a yacht club in a Cup competition to committ breach, the club would have to conduct itself in such a manner as to break the continuity Schuyler obliges of the Defender and the Challenger. Such an act would look different from that of the Administrator of a family trust whose actions have been shown both to enrichen himself at the expense of the trustees and to have been calculated by him to this end. In the case of a family trust, the benficiaries are listed. There is a procudure in settled law for continuing the trust across successive generations. Family ties and adoption are resolved in an accepted manner. Standing to claim harm from an Administrator's acts then extends to the named trustees by complaint and it extends to future trustees by implication-their interests are the same as those of the current generation.



In place of logic, the trust the NY Court created in reply to Schuyler's request turns on a decision that is effected through competition. A transfer of property-the Cup-completes what has already been decided on the water. The parallel with a claim against the administrator of a family trust would have a current or potential participant in the competition argue that a competition failed to effect the needed decision even though the competitors and the members of any qualifying yacht club agree one boat finished ahead of the other. A competition may fail to provide the decision Schuyler demands if a former Defender refuses to reliquish all the rights he gained through the prior competition. Here the new Defender would have standing to complain. A future competition would fail if the winner in the competition just past acknowledges a challenge from a club not having an annual regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. Here the members of any qualifying club would have standing to complain. MSP's challenges turn on procedural grounds that would be in play in the case of a family trust. This is why he comes back again and again to the flow of dollars. The point he misses is the point that distiguishes the trust Schuyler asked of the Court from a trust where the participants and the beneficiaries are listed. The participants and beneficiaries to the America's Cup trust are known through the definitions and requirements set out in the Deed. Thus the America's Cup trust differs from a family trust in its defining for itself limits that a family trust invokes from trust law. Most of the requirements imposed on a Defender and a Challenger flow from the Deed of Gift. Where the settled law of family and like trusts describes how the participants are to act the Deed provides requirements that, for the most part, are settled among members of the sailing community. Recall that many of the complaints SNG and GGYC made to the Court turned on technical issues.


The America's Cup is more like a contract to perform than MSP is willing or able to acknowledge. This has implications as to whom a Court will recognize as being open to benefit or harm from the decision that comes about through a competition on the water. Render the decision murky or ineffectual and you jeopardize a future America's Cup, thus acting contrary to Schuyler's intent. MSP seems devoted to pursuing a claim of breach. I think this blinds him to some of the ways a Defender, a Challenger and the sailing community can fall short of the promise Schuyler made through trust law.

#186 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:07 PM

Teal67 posts: "As to the cup being a "Charitable Trust", it is a trust of a single item -- the trophy won by America in 1851. The terms of the "Charitable Trust" are the terms of the DoG. The "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are the eligible challenger of foreign yacht clubs (and in this case, Mercury Bay). The only benefit that those "Ultimate Charitable Beneficiaries" are entitled to is a match to win the trophy in accordance with the terms of the DoG."

I'll continue on my own since I may be taking Teal67's comment in a direction he does not mean it to go. Talk of beneficiaries to the charitable trust Schuyler asked that the New York court create does not carry the implication MSP's arguments concerning breach require. Schuyler sought a trust as a means in the law to assure that the competition he and others had enjoyed would continue in perpetuity. He asked the Court to recognize a committment to future participation that would assure another competition for the Cup, no matter the circumstances of the competition underway or its outcome. For a yacht club in a Cup competition to committ breach, the club would have to conduct itself in such a manner as to break the continuity Schuyler obliges of the Defender and the Challenger. Such an act would look different from that of the Administrator of a family trust whose actions have been shown both to enrichen himself at the expense of the trustees and to have been calculated by him to this end. In the case of a family trust, the benficiaries are listed. There is a procudure in settled law for continuing the trust across successive generations. Family ties and adoption are resolved in an accepted manner. Standing to claim harm from an Administrator's acts then extends to the named trustees by complaint and it extends to future trustees by implication-their interests are the same as those of the current generation.



In place of logic, the trust the NY Court created in reply to Schuyler's request turns on a decision that is effected through competition. A transfer of property-the Cup-completes what has already been decided on the water. The parallel with a claim against the administrator of a family trust would have a current or potential participant in the competition argue that a competition failed to effect the needed decision even though the competitors and the members of any qualifying yacht club agree one boat finished ahead of the other. A competition may fail to provide the decision Schuyler demands if a former Defender refuses to reliquish all the rights he gained through the prior competition. Here the new Defender would have standing to complain. A future competition would fail if the winner in the competition just past acknowledges a challenge from a club not having an annual regatta on the sea or an arm of the sea. Here the members of any qualifying club would have standing to complain. MSP's challenges turn on procedural grounds that would be in play in the case of a family trust. This is why he comes back again and again to the flow of dollars. The point he misses is the point that distiguishes the trust Schuyler asked of the Court from a trust where the participants and the beneficiaries are listed. The participants and beneficiaries to the America's Cup trust are known through the definitions and requirements set out in the Deed. Thus the America's Cup trust differs from a family trust in its defining for itself limits that a family trust invokes from trust law. Most of the requirements imposed on a Defender and a Challenger flow from the Deed of Gift. Where the settled law of family and like trusts describes how the participants are to act the Deed provides requirements that, for the most part, are settled among members of the sailing community. Recall that many of the complaints SNG and GGYC made to the Court turned on technical issues.


The America's Cup is more like a contract to perform than MSP is willing or able to acknowledge. This has implications as to whom a Court will recognize as being open to benefit or harm from the decision that comes about through a competition on the water. Render the decision murky or ineffectual and you jeopardize a future America's Cup, thus acting contrary to Schuyler's intent. MSP seems devoted to pursuing a claim of breach. I think this blinds him to some of the ways a Defender, a Challenger and the sailing community can fall short of the promise Schuyler made through trust law.


scassani

thanks for that great posting

I see what your take is on those issues you discuss but I am not blinded

did you know george canfield was GLS good friend and worked with GLS to construct DEED OF GIFT

if you know trust law as it appears you know of canfield's legendary works on trusts

which I have studied and used for years

cheers and thanks for helping teal

#187 scassani

scassani

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:16 PM

You're welcome, MSP.

#188 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:48 PM

teal

here is a copy of the 2nd confirmation as it appears you lost your copy

notice my name has ttee in IRS DEPT OF TREASURY TERMS as TRUSTEE

and why NYYC was my new friend besides others

now you and others can spew about its nothing

but just think of the process that I went thru to get the us federal dept of treasury to register the ac trust

which nyyc or any one else was able or wanted to do

so just having the exact name is proof

cheers

btw dont send me any packages there it shows my old address

Attached File  AC TRUST IRS CONFIRMATION AND 2 ND VERIFICATION NAME AND NUMBER 01.JPG   71.72K   20 downloads



Proof of what? What are the asset of this "AC Trust" are what? Certainly not the cup. The cup belongs to the Golden Gate Yacht Club. It was legally transferred to them from SNG under the watchful eye of the NYSC.

So what good is your trust? What does it control?

Simply because you have a tax payer ID from the IRS for something called the "AC Trust" does not give you any more right to own or control the ". . . Cup won by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851." than I would have if I got a tax payer ID for something I've named the "Gates Foundation" and attempted to lay claim to the fortunes of the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

#189 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 06:21 PM

If someone wins the cup and wants to try to make money trying to run the matches, have at it. there is nothing in the DoG that prohibits that.


The Deed is very specific on the purpose of the trust which is to transfer the Cup, and it does not include making profit.

That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the premises and of the performance of the conditions and agreements hereinafter set forth by the party of the second part, has granted, bargained, sold, assigned, transferred and set over, and by these present does grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer, and set over, unto said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, the Cup won by the schooner yacht AMERICA, at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851. To have and to hold the same to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, IN TRUST, NEVERTHELESS, for the following uses and purposes:
"

#190 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 06:57 PM


teal

here is a copy of the 2nd confirmation as it appears you lost your copy

notice my name has ttee in IRS DEPT OF TREASURY TERMS as TRUSTEE

and why NYYC was my new friend besides others

now you and others can spew about its nothing

but just think of the process that I went thru to get the us federal dept of treasury to register the ac trust

which nyyc or any one else was able or wanted to do

so just having the exact name is proof

cheers

btw dont send me any packages there it shows my old address

Attached File  AC TRUST IRS CONFIRMATION AND 2 ND VERIFICATION NAME AND NUMBER 01.JPG   71.72K   20 downloads



Proof of what? What are the asset of this "AC Trust" are what? Certainly not the cup. The cup belongs to the Golden Gate Yacht Club. It was legally transferred to them from SNG under the watchful eye of the NYSC.

So what good is your trust? What does it control?

Simply because you have a tax payer ID from the IRS for something called the "AC Trust" does not give you any more right to own or control the ". . . Cup won by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851." than I would have if I got a tax payer ID for something I've named the "Gates Foundation" and attempted to lay claim to the fortunes of the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.


teal

you have to ask yourself this question

why wasnt the ac trust registered with the IRS -DEPT OF TREASURY AS REQUIRED UNDER US FEDERAL LAWS

it was established in ny but that is not the complete legal process

otherwise it would not be a legal charitable trust as the IRS and under DEPT OF TREASURY regulate the charitable trusts

so reverse engineer the ac trust

if its a legal charitable trust why didnt nyyc or sdyc register it because it hadnt been until I did

nyyc is liable for past ''donations'' and filings so nyyc has alot to hide --ie fraud -obstruction of justice -false claims act etc

and if you read the DEED OF GIFT there is no word or term ''TRUSTEE''

so ggyc isnt one as thats impossible as it has to be a person anyway

thanks tho for your defending posts good discussion s -

cheers

#191 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 07:04 PM





Proof of what? What are the asset of this "AC Trust" are what? Certainly not the cup. The cup belongs to the Golden Gate Yacht Club. It was legally transferred to them from SNG under the watchful eye of the NYSC.

So what good is your trust? What does it control?

Simply because you have a tax payer ID from the IRS for something called the "AC Trust" does not give you any more right to own or control the ". . . Cup won by the schooner yacht America at Cowes, England, upon the twenty-second day of August, 1851." than I would have if I got a tax payer ID for something I've named the "Gates Foundation" and attempted to lay claim to the fortunes of the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

That about sums it up in a nutshell. .

Maybe MSP should also get a taxpayer ID for the "MSP LE trust" so he can also claim LE's net worth - it only takes a few minutes;


Federal Tax ID Number | gov-id.comchrome-extension://jmfkcklnlgedgbglfkkgedjfmejoahla/content/Icons/safe.gif
www.gov-id.com/Federal-EINGet your Tax ID Number in minutes.



#192 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 December 2011 - 07:55 PM

teal

you have to ask yourself this question

why wasnt the ac trust registered with the IRS -DEPT OF TREASURY AS REQUIRED UNDER US FEDERAL LAWS

it was established in ny but that is not the complete legal process

otherwise it would not be a legal charitable trust as the IRS and under DEPT OF TREASURY regulate the charitable trusts

so reverse engineer the ac trust

if its a legal charitable trust why didnt nyyc or sdyc register it because it hadnt been until I did

nyyc is liable for past ''donations'' and filings so nyyc has alot to hide --ie fraud -obstruction of justice -false claims act etc

and if you read the DEED OF GIFT there is no word or term ''TRUSTEE''

so ggyc isnt one as thats impossible as it has to be a person anyway

thanks tho for your defending posts good discussion s -

cheers


OK, I asked myself that question and the answer I got was: "Why should they?" The trust controls a piece of silver. They can't sell it. The only thing they can do with it is put it up for challenge (under the terms of the DoG). What's to be regulated after the registration? The polishing schedule?

Additionally, the trust instrument that controls the cup is the DoG. There is no need for any additional trust document. You say no one ever "registered" it, but do you have any proof that the real trust that was created by the DoG does not have a taxpayer ID? Simply because no one had created an entity called "AC Trust" doesn't mean there is no valid trust nor does it mean that they never got a tax payer ID. Remember that Schuyler did not call it the America's Cup.

As for the NYYC (and presumably every other club) being liable for "donations" and filings, what would they be? The trust controls a piece of silver. I didn't realize the clubs were taking donations (presumably for silver polish). Of course the filings are probably kept with the left over pieces of silver after the cup was re-built following the incident in NZ. I think the documents that have recently been discussed indicated that those were properly accounted for by SNG after the last cup.

As for the "trustee" . . . doesn't the DoG specifically state that the cup is given to the club and is NOT the property of any single person? Of course, this would imply that the trustee(s) of the cup is the board of the club that owns it (not you). Certainly, the trustee would not be someone who is NOT a member of the club owning the cup. It was given to a club "IN TRUST NEVERTHELESS", not an individual.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. I will never convince you of what I believe is your error in legal logic and standing, so I will "trust" that eventually you will file your action and the courts will convince you for me. So, grab your briefs, gather up those filing fees and have at it. The courts are just waiting for you to file your motions to snatch the cup.

#193 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:07 PM

Teal, your logic makes sense but then, why would NYYC be willing to discuss with MSP ?

#194 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,448 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:10 PM


teal

you have to ask yourself this question

why wasnt the ac trust registered with the IRS -DEPT OF TREASURY AS REQUIRED UNDER US FEDERAL LAWS

it was established in ny but that is not the complete legal process

otherwise it would not be a legal charitable trust as the IRS and under DEPT OF TREASURY regulate the charitable trusts

so reverse engineer the ac trust

if its a legal charitable trust why didnt nyyc or sdyc register it because it hadnt been until I did

nyyc is liable for past ''donations'' and filings so nyyc has alot to hide --ie fraud -obstruction of justice -false claims act etc

and if you read the DEED OF GIFT there is no word or term ''TRUSTEE''

so ggyc isnt one as thats impossible as it has to be a person anyway

thanks tho for your defending posts good discussion s -

cheers


OK, I asked myself that question and the answer I got was: "Why should they?" The trust controls a piece of silver. They can't sell it. The only thing they can do with it is put it up for challenge (under the terms of the DoG). What's to be regulated after the registration? The polishing schedule?

Additionally, the trust instrument that controls the cup is the DoG. There is no need for any additional trust document. You say no one ever "registered" it, but do you have any proof that the real trust that was created by the DoG does not have a taxpayer ID? Simply because no one had created an entity called "AC Trust" doesn't mean there is no valid trust nor does it mean that they never got a tax payer ID. Remember that Schuyler did not call it the America's Cup.

As for the NYYC (and presumably every other club) being liable for "donations" and filings, what would they be? The trust controls a piece of silver. I didn't realize the clubs were taking donations (presumably for silver polish). Of course the filings are probably kept with the left over pieces of silver after the cup was re-built following the incident in NZ. I think the documents that have recently been discussed indicated that those were properly accounted for by SNG after the last cup.

As for the "trustee" . . . doesn't the DoG specifically state that the cup is given to the club and is NOT the property of any single person? Of course, this would imply that the trustee(s) of the cup is the board of the club that owns it (not you). Certainly, the trustee would not be someone who is NOT a member of the club owning the cup. It was given to a club "IN TRUST NEVERTHELESS", not an individual.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. I will never convince you of what I believe is your error in legal logic and standing, so I will "trust" that eventually you will file your action and the courts will convince you for me. So, grab your briefs, gather up those filing fees and have at it. The courts are just waiting for you to file your motions to snatch the cup.

Apparently it's a long walk to the NYSC - three years and three hundred idle threats have passed, and still no filing, but lots of chest pounding going on.

#195 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 312 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 24 December 2011 - 09:06 PM

Teal, your logic makes sense but then, why would NYYC be willing to discuss with MSP ?


TC, to be honest I don't know. It is an interesting question. Perhaps they were trying to negotiate getting hold of MSP's AC Trust name (some kind of a legal equivalent to purchasing an internet domain name). I think MSP mentioned that whomever he was talking to was unwilling to actually say they were representing the NYYC, I suppose it could have been a fishing trip on their part.

#196 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 24 December 2011 - 09:23 PM


We just went through all this stuff. Were you not reading? Mercury Bay decision confirmed AC trust status as charitable. That's what it is until the court decides otherwise. Take a look.

What AC Trust? The entity known as the "AC Trust" is MSP's made up trust. It was not involved in Mercury Bay vs. SDYC.

Are you paranoid? Where did I write anything about the "AC Trust"? The AC trust status is charitable until court rules otherwise. Read Mercury Bay.

#197 pjfranks

pjfranks

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,665 posts
  • Location:yep
  • Interests:wtf is one warning points?

Posted 24 December 2011 - 09:25 PM


Teal, your logic makes sense but then, why would NYYC be willing to discuss with MSP ?


TC, to be honest I don't know. It is an interesting question. Perhaps they were trying to negotiate getting hold of MSP's AC Trust name (some kind of a legal equivalent to purchasing an internet domain name). I think MSP mentioned that whomever he was talking to was unwilling to actually say they were representing the NYYC, I suppose it could have been a fishing trip on their part.

Shows that they do not have complete legal control if they want to buy off ACT.

#198 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,535 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 24 December 2011 - 09:49 PM


Teal, your logic makes sense but then, why would NYYC be willing to discuss with MSP ?


TC, to be honest I don't know. It is an interesting question. Perhaps they were trying to negotiate getting hold of MSP's AC Trust name (some kind of a legal equivalent to purchasing an internet domain name). I think MSP mentioned that whomever he was talking to was unwilling to actually say they were representing the NYYC, I suppose it could have been a fishing trip on their part.


hilarious

teal your a comedian ...right

ok again reverse engineer your thesis -

-here cited --///Perhaps they were trying to negotiate getting hold of MSP's AC Trust name (some kind of a legal equivalent to purchasing an internet domain name).


now ask yourself why would ehman and evilsin // nyyc want to ''buy'' the AMERICA'S CUP TRUST when they claim to own all the rights to that name already ????

also if they think they own it like ggyc has recently claimed -illegally and falsely

how and why did I get the US GOVERNMENT to override the WIPO AND US TRADEMARKS --how did I get the WIPO to remove the 2 AC WIPO PRO-FILES illegally claimed

BY BERTARELLI AND GGYC

and so ask ggyc oracaklers what happened to the 2 WIPO registrations on the AMERICA'S CUP et seq --that --were --on their website and who and what stopped ggyc from using them

you see teal not everything is posted here and the ggyc orcaklers --america's cup alphabet corpse would be using them if they could

no one has mentioned the different look you dont see them using the ''trophy''

some things or persons dont have a price .....that can be paid or sold out for

so understand not everything is public or posted and there is a real legal process to all this maybe only half is public ...so far


teal if you understand litigation and when to file etc --you better exhaust your administrative remedies --which I have been doing

oh btw I have the copies of the WIPO 2 PROFILES --of course


cheers

#199 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,705 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 10:36 PM



Teal, your logic makes sense but then, why would NYYC be willing to discuss with MSP ?


TC, to be honest I don't know. It is an interesting question. Perhaps they were trying to negotiate getting hold of MSP's AC Trust name (some kind of a legal equivalent to purchasing an internet domain name). I think MSP mentioned that whomever he was talking to was unwilling to actually say they were representing the NYYC, I suppose it could have been a fishing trip on their part.

Shows that they do not have complete legal control if they want to buy off ACT.


Strange to see NYYC getting in touch with MSP at the same time ADM is bringing GGYC to courts.
Are they just trying to get info from MSP ? or could it be that NYYC - GGYC would like to have an IRS number under the AC trust in order to declare revenues ?

#200 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,762 posts

Posted 24 December 2011 - 10:46 PM

Entities already have their own IRS numbers. MSP is trying to require them to do the same for the trophy itself, and 'cyber squatting' a placeholder for that bizarre an eventuality.

TC, you and PJF keep ignoring that 'charitable' in this case has nothing at all to do with non-profit. It is all about taking (providing) challenges for the Cup and nothing else. The trophy does not need an IRS number any more than does my coffee mug. MSP ignores it too, intentionally.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users