Jump to content


Hamish Ross. Legal Eagle...or Beagle?


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 11:20 PM

The latest from Hamish about how the Deed isn't really a Deed, and that even if the Cup then doesn't exist, never the less ISAF should run it.  Or something like that.  Nothing much new here, basically the same stuff that the late Maid Marian spouted off on his behalf in the past.

 

All this from the guy who gave us CNEV.  Now there is a lawyer we can all trust.

 

Anyway...found the gibberish from Ross on Ehman's FB page.  Click on the Dropbox link to read the latest legal theory from Hamish Ross.

 

MUST READ for Cupheads, especially those of you interested in protocol/legal/rules — an article by Hamish Ross (NZL) in the NZ Law Journal (Nov 2013 issue) that will raise more than a few eyebrows. Hamish has been involved in the Cup since the late 90s as a rules adviser to NYYC (Young America), then to SNG (Alinghi), and for AC34 as legal adviser to Regatta Director Iain Murray and ACRM. You have to read through to the last few paragraphs, but Hamish's paper suggests that any and all disputes should be adjudicated by an ISAF-appointed jury — even matters that, under the Deed of Gift, must be taken to the courts of New York — because, he says, the American courts favor American clubs whether Defender (SDYC in 1988) or Challenger (GGYC in 2010). You can download the article, as a .pdf, from my Dropbox here (and, as always, comments welcome below)....

https://www.dropbox....13 NZLJ 359.pdf
 
 

 



#2 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 09 December 2013 - 11:24 PM

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right based on trust law and previous decisions, but it is a pretty goddamned complicated and convoluted issue that brings in Trust jurisprudence, several dozen statutes, rules against perpetuities, and the evidentiary hurdles that reinterpreting old laws carries.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.  Without a hardcore team of great lawyers to battle against the guys Ellison, the NYYC, and everyone else that wants to see the cup continue to grow would invariably throw at it.



#3 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 11:32 PM

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

 

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.



#4 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,804 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 11:59 PM

His conclusion is that

"The Americas Cup would be better served if the New York courts excused themselves from Americas Cup disputes by giving effect to the terms of the Deed of Gift requiring competitors to resolve their disputes before an international jury appointed by ISAF. Their disputes then can be dealt with more quickly, at less cost, and neutrally by those more knowledgeable in the sport, resulting in less damage to the sport and its reputation."

me: speed and cost should not be used as arguments against a superseding court determining what ultimately is right; and while ISAF may be "knowledgeable in the sport" at the 'sport' level, as Clean suggests the NYSC is vastly more knowledgeable in NY Trust law above that. That clubs subscribe to ISAF regs goes only so far.

#5 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,804 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:07 AM

It's also my guess that, if the ISAF AC Jury's decision to dock GGYC two wins in AC34 had played a part in the result, then it would ultimately have been successfully appealed and overturned before the NYSC.

ISAF overreached on what authority they thought they wielded, it was a massive mistake on their part. HR is apparently arguing for even more authority by that body, as lawyers with an interest in any body might be want to do. My other guess is that the likes of Corey Friedman would take a very different view to ultimate authority over a NY Trust instrument.

#6 A Florida Redneck

A Florida Redneck

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,556 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda, Florida

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:15 AM

It's also my guess that, if the ISAF AC Jury's decision to dock GGYC two wins in AC34 had played a part in the result, then it would ultimately have been successfully appealed and overturned before the NYSC.

ISAF overreached on what authority they thought they wielded, it was a massive mistake on their part.

Edit:  Yeah, well somebody in the Oracle camp screwed up to let that little bit of disconnect happen.

Hopefully Larry learned a lesson with that fiasco.  The AC is way bigger and more important than a bunch of EuroCrats trying to make themselves feel relevant on the biggest stage they never dreamed of standing on....

Did enhance the comeback story a bit though!  Thanks for that!

I guess...



#7 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:17 AM



Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.



#8 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:51 AM


 

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.

 

No....it is my opinion that Hamish Ross is a duplicitous piece of shit.   And I mean no offense to shit.  Alinghi was not a client, it was his employer.  He was advancing this argument while he was engaged in helping to craft the protocol for AC 33, which gave ALL the power of EVERYTHING to the Defender.  He tried the whole "Having" argument.

 

And yes, there have been several lawyers who have tried to advance the argument about the Deed of Gift not being a charitable trust, and one pretend lawyer in MSP.  So in the end, MSP and Ross are actually far closer in ideology than apart.  They only differ by degree of the evidence and timeline they present.

 

The only way the Deed is ever going to be challenged successful in the NY Court is for there to be something so egregious with money that the AG has to step in, or, the Defender goes to the Court and asks for it to be amended as Ross wants.  He was with a then defender for AC 33, yet he never elected to take that path.

 

And the asshole actually works for the more recent defender, and just weeks after his employ is up, he starts up with this crap again. He's just a lawyer looking to present a problem that might need to be solved, to present something that might cause a bit of a distraction for the defender.  So the only real question is which Challenger will hire him to go fuck with Larry, his most recent employer.

 

To him I say, good luck with that.  And you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.

 

Anyone else see a potential connection?



#9 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:52 AM

It may hurt the Cup, but then again I don't see any ISAF-governed regattas lasting since 1851.



#10 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:56 AM

 


 

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.

 

No....it is my opinion that Hamish Ross is a duplicitous piece of shit.   And I mean no offense to shit.  Alinghi was not a client, it was his employer.  He was advancing this argument while he was engaged in helping to craft the protocol for AC 33, which gave ALL the power of EVERYTHING to the Defender.  He tried the whole "Having" argument.

 

And yes, there have been several lawyers who have tried to advance the argument about the Deed of Gift not being a charitable trust, and one pretend lawyer in MSP.  So in the end, MSP and Ross are actually far closer in ideology than apart.  They only differ by degree of the evidence and timeline they present.

 

The only way the Deed is ever going to be challenged successful in the NY Court is for there to be something so egregious with money that the AG has to step in, or, the Defender goes to the Court and asks for it to be amended as Ross wants.  He was with a then defender for AC 33, yet he never elected to take that path.

 

And the asshole actually works for the more recent defender, and just weeks after his employ is up, he starts up with this crap again. He's just a lawyer looking to present a problem that might need to be solved, to present something that might cause a bit of a distraction for the defender.  So the only real question is which Challenger will hire him to go fuck with Larry, his most recent employer.

 

To him I say, good luck with that.  And you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.

 

Anyone else see a potential connection?

 

 

I don't know about that.  Seems a little paranoid and some of your assumptions are wrong.



#11 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:04 AM

 


 

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.

 

No....it is my opinion that Hamish Ross is a duplicitous piece of shit.   And I mean no offense to shit.  Alinghi was not a client, it was his employer.  He was advancing this argument while he was engaged in helping to craft the protocol for AC 33, which gave ALL the power of EVERYTHING to the Defender.  He tried the whole "Having" argument.

 

And yes, there have been several lawyers who have tried to advance the argument about the Deed of Gift not being a charitable trust, and one pretend lawyer in MSP.  So in the end, MSP and Ross are actually far closer in ideology than apart.  They only differ by degree of the evidence and timeline they present.

 

The only way the Deed is ever going to be challenged successful in the NY Court is for there to be something so egregious with money that the AG has to step in, or, the Defender goes to the Court and asks for it to be amended as Ross wants.  He was with a then defender for AC 33, yet he never elected to take that path.

 

And the asshole actually works for the more recent defender, and just weeks after his employ is up, he starts up with this crap again. He's just a lawyer looking to present a problem that might need to be solved, to present something that might cause a bit of a distraction for the defender.  So the only real question is which Challenger will hire him to go fuck with Larry, his most recent employer.

 

To him I say, good luck with that.  And you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.

 

Anyone else see a potential connection?

 

Only that ADM's attorney was EB's last losing attorney - but I doubt EB holds a grudge after being pounded time after time in court and getting crushed on the course in Valencia after being so stupid as to think he was better than JS.

 

I had the pleasure of bursting his bubble on the flight into Valencia from Madrid. One cocky SOB fallen when all was said and done, and he had no idea of EB's history and lack of success with attorneys on the flight. That was an enjoyable conversation.



#12 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:05 AM

 

 


 

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.

 

No....it is my opinion that Hamish Ross is a duplicitous piece of shit.   And I mean no offense to shit.  Alinghi was not a client, it was his employer.  He was advancing this argument while he was engaged in helping to craft the protocol for AC 33, which gave ALL the power of EVERYTHING to the Defender.  He tried the whole "Having" argument.

 

And yes, there have been several lawyers who have tried to advance the argument about the Deed of Gift not being a charitable trust, and one pretend lawyer in MSP.  So in the end, MSP and Ross are actually far closer in ideology than apart.  They only differ by degree of the evidence and timeline they present.

 

The only way the Deed is ever going to be challenged successful in the NY Court is for there to be something so egregious with money that the AG has to step in, or, the Defender goes to the Court and asks for it to be amended as Ross wants.  He was with a then defender for AC 33, yet he never elected to take that path.

 

And the asshole actually works for the more recent defender, and just weeks after his employ is up, he starts up with this crap again. He's just a lawyer looking to present a problem that might need to be solved, to present something that might cause a bit of a distraction for the defender.  So the only real question is which Challenger will hire him to go fuck with Larry, his most recent employer.

 

To him I say, good luck with that.  And you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.

 

Anyone else see a potential connection?

 

 

I don't know about that.  Seems a little paranoid and some of your assumptions are wrong.

 

Seeing as you a member of the international media, always carry a pink flag, and used to be a lawyer, no doubt you must be correct.



#13 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,148 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:28 AM

I had the pleasure of bursting his bubble on the flight into Valencia from Madrid. One cocky SOB fallen when all was said and done, and he had no idea of EB's history .

Any proof of that ? I guess that is what you call "facts". :D



#14 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,148 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:35 AM

Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM

If Larry was willing the lawyers out of the equation he would have accepted ADM to present a yacht.

Any other bright comments Peter ? :D



#15 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 04:51 AM

I had the pleasure of bursting his bubble on the flight into Valencia from Madrid. One cocky SOB fallen when all was said and done, and he had no idea of EB's history .

Any proof of that ? I guess that is what you call "facts". :D

 

Why should I prove anything to you, of all trolls ? I hope you don't believe me because I could care less anyway :) 



#16 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:42 AM

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.
 
Anyone else see a potential connection?

 
I'm not very interested in the connection and I couldn't care less about ADM. The impulse to personalise everything eliminates discussion and I'm more interested in the argument Ross makes. But I see you didn't start this thread to discuss that.

#17 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:27 AM

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right based on trust law and previous decisions, but it is a pretty goddamned complicated and convoluted issue that brings in Trust jurisprudence, several dozen statutes, rules against perpetuities, and the evidentiary hurdles that reinterpreting old laws carries.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.  Without a hardcore team of great lawyers to battle against the guys Ellison, the NYYC, and everyone else that wants to see the cup continue to grow would invariably throw at it.

http://www.sail-worl...d=0&tickerCID=0

 

A chance for sport to reclaim the America’s Cup? 
 

Alt_ir_IMG_7584.jpg 'Hamish Ross, General Counsel for Alinghi. 'There is now a unique opportunity with an appeal before an appellate Court, for wider consideration and for a long-term view to be taken whether the courts should continue to be actively involved in the America’s Cup''    Ivo Rovira /Alinghi    Click Here to view large photo
General Counsel of Team Alinghi and long time America's Cup historian, Hamish Ross, here expresses a personal view of the background to the various occasions when America's Cup players have considered legal action, and how the current players and sport now has an opportunity to reclaim the America’s Cup: 

Sport ceases to be sport as soon as it enters the courthouse. 

In a much quoted comment, the then Chief Justice of the State of New York eloquently wrote in 1990, when agreeing with the majority final judgment of the Mercury Bay dispute; 

'Ultimately, however, it must be the contestants, not the courts, who define the traditions and ideals of the sport. No one wishes to see the competition debased by commercialism and greed. But if the traditions and ideals of the sport are dependant on judicial coercion, that battle is lost.' 

The courts are latecomers to the America’s Cup scene, having only been involved since 1956 to restart racing after the Second World War and the following post-war austerity. Even then early hearings were widely agreed and uncontested to amend or interpret the Deed of Gift. 


std_ac88-07L.jpg
Michael Fay holds an impromtu media conference at the 1988 America’s Cup - 20 years on the premier event in sailing is again involved in another legal and PR slug fest. -  Rich Roberts?nid=43952 ©  
Interestingly, the first contentious proceedings in the America’s Cup by a competitor were injunction proceedings filed by the San Diego Yacht Club against the Royal Perth Yacht Club in 1985 (Supreme Court of New York Index No. 22320/85) over claims of interference by the Defender in the rules of the challenger selection series to be held in Fremantle, but was soon settled before a hearing was needed. In earlier times, disputes (and there were more than a few) were resolved within the sport. Indeed the attitude of the donor George Schuyler to the courts being involved is clear from his 1871 letter to sporting newspaper Spirit of the Times, 'Mr Ashbury’s intimation of a resort to legal rights in a manner of this kind can hardly be seriously entertained.' 

Without wishing adding to the debate over the rights and wrongs of present issues, there is now a unique opportunity with an appeal before an appellate Court, for wider consideration and for a long-term view to be taken whether the courts should continue to be actively involved in the America’s Cup, or whether, as the Court of Appeals indicated in the Mercury Bay case, the sport should take full responsibly for its own dispute resolution. The refusal of the courts to consider claims of fairness and what is sporting, a central part of the Mercury Bay judgment, is a serious impediment to upholding sporting ideals within the court system. One thing is certain, without a fundamental change, the present situation will repeat in the future as they have done in the past. 

There are also strong factual and legal reasons to support the appellate Court taking such an approach. If the courts are to be involved and apply legal principles to resolve disputes within the America’s Cup, the Deed of Gift should first qualify for legal recognition. It may not be so qualified. 

The circumstances surrounding the creation of the first Deed of Gift of 1857 cast doubt whether it is a document that could be recognised at law as a valid gift due to defects as to form. While there was common general intent amongst the original owners of the America and the Cup it had won, the required legal formalities were not met. Such are the defects it is questionable whether there was any original intent on the part of the donors to create a legal document for the courts to enforce. 


Alt_america.jpg
A replica of the boat that started it all, the schooner, America. -  Carlo Borlenghi?nid=43952 ©   Click Here to view large photo

The first Deed was never signed by all five owners of the Cup. The original Deed was signed in 1852 by Schulyer, Finlay and Wilkes’s attorney and then sent to Commodore Stevens for his brother Edwin and him to sign. There is no evidence they ever signed it. The document was lost and never found. After Wilkes’s death in later in 1852 in Pau , France, and Commodore Stevens death in 1857, Schuyler sent an unsigned (except for his own signature) holographic copy to the NYYC, after he re-dated it and appears to have made other amendments, advising the NYYC this was what was intended. It was this unsigned and amended document that was used to found the America’s Cup competition and is now known as the first Deed. 

The second Deed, and the third and current Deed created respectively in 1882 and 1887 are equally questionable. Schulyer was not the only owner by merely being the last survivor and could not change the terms unilaterally. New York Yacht Club had no right under the terms of the first or the second Deed to hand it back to Schuyler for him to change its terms. None of this is new, as contemporary articles and letters in yachting magazines and even the in the venerated history of the Cup, 'The Lawson History of the America’ Cup' confirm. Indeed a member of the Club’s America’s Cup Committee readily admitted it in correspondence to an intending challenger in 1890 that 'this was not strictly legal'. The various and current Deeds of Gift have trouble surviving any normal legal analysis as to their validity as to legal form. 



Med_AC070402-13_1_DSC_0027_1151x768_Vale
America’s Cup time ticks by on the clock tower in Valencia. -  MCC McCamp   Click Here to view large photo
In addition to defects in the Deeds of Gift as to form, there are also serious difficulties in the Deeds creating a charitable trust, the basis on which the courts have exercised jurisdiction and have applied the law relating to charitable trusts to resolve issues in the America’s Cup. Charitable purpose is hard to find within the America’s Cup. The question whether the Deeds create a charitable trust which is able to be recognised by law has never been fully considered by a court. The majority of the Court of Appeals in the final Mercury Bay judgment referred to the point in their judgment, but in the absence of submissions from the parties, left it open. 

The law only recognises a limited range of charities, the promotion of sport is not one those traditionally recognised. As the Court of Appeals noted there are long standing legal precedents for the law not recognising as valid charitable trusts to promote sport and specifically yacht racing. Professor James A.R. Nafziger of Willamette University writing in the American Journal of International Law after the Court of Appeals Mercury Bay decision: 

'Whether the America’s cup deed of gift established a charitable trust in the first place is a troublesome issue of characterization that also bears on the capacity of the modified deed to impose New York jurisdiction and law as a means of resolving all future disputes. New York law did not recognise charitable trusts when the deed was created. 

Moreover, the subsequent administration of the trust fails to yield clear evidence of a charitable purpose. Ordinarily a trust set up solely to promote a sports competition would not be 'charitable' unless the public, broadly defined received a benefit, and the lucrative effect of the America’s cup calls into question its charitable character....Moreover the NYYC’s reconveyances of the Cup to George Schulyer, one of the original donors, so that he could fine-tune the deed may have been inadequate bases for the resulting amendments.' 

Yes, there are many legal arguments that can be raised in support of the Deeds of Gift and the continued application of legal principles by the court, but they fail to address the wider and more important point for the sport, whether it is desirable for the courts to have a continuing long term role in the America’s Cup? 

If the courts are unable to recognise the Deed of Gift as having legal validity permitting the application of legal principles to resolve disputes, all is not lost. Sporting life can and should be allowed to exist outside the jurisdiction and direct supervision of the courts. Competitors need to learn to look to the sport to resolve their issues, not the courts. The best place to start is at highest levels of the sport. 


Alt_NZLV_2210%5B2%5Dred.jpg
The Arbitration Panel meets in the 2002 Louis Vuitton Cup. A similar body comprising say, the Trustees of the America’s Cup is one solution to avoid litigation of the type before the NYSC -  Event Media   Click Here to view large photo

Dis




by Hamish Ross 

    

 


http://www.sail-worl...x.cfm?nid=43952

8:34 PM Mon 28 Apr 2008 GMT


#18 edouard

edouard

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Interests:Leisure sailing for 35 years with anything windpowered from Hobies to Classic Keelboats

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:16 AM

Just confirms, if need be, that the AC is the World's Premier Lawyers Tournament with a few yacht races thrown in from time to time.



#19 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:44 AM

Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM

If Larry was willing the lawyers out of the equation he would have accepted ADM to present a yacht.

Any other bright comments Peter ? :D

TC, time to drop this

 

ADM had no yacht

They didn't have the money to buy a yacht

They didn't have the money to design and build a yacht

Even if a yacht had fallen out of the sky for them to sail on, they had no specific crew signed up to sail it

They had no demonstrable skills to be able sail the yacht

 

At best, ADM was a cute idea to create some warm fuzzy feelings ('look how inclusive we are!')

At worst, it was an attempt to abuse the public profile of the Cup for personal gain.

 

:wacko:

Sorry for the rant!



#20 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Interests:Finding spoog for my face.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:12 AM



Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM

If Larry was willing the lawyers out of the equation he would have accepted ADM to present a yacht.
Any other bright comments Peter ? :D


TC, time to drop this
 
ADM had no yacht
They didn't have the money to buy a yacht
They didn't have the money to design and build a yacht
Even if a yacht had fallen out of the sky for them to sail on, they had no specific crew signed up to sail it
They had no demonstrable skills to be able sail the yacht
 
At best, ADM was a cute idea to create some warm fuzzy feelings ('look how inclusive we are!')
At worst, it was an attempt to abuse the public profile of the Cup for personal gain.
 
:wacko:
Sorry for the rant!


I think your being generous when you describe the ADM credentials.

#21 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:15 AM

 

 

Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM

If Larry was willing the lawyers out of the equation he would have accepted ADM to present a yacht.
Any other bright comments Peter ? :D

 

TC, time to drop this
 
ADM had no yacht
They didn't have the money to buy a yacht
They didn't have the money to design and build a yacht
Even if a yacht had fallen out of the sky for them to sail on, they had no specific crew signed up to sail it
They had no demonstrable skills to be able sail the yacht
 
At best, ADM was a cute idea to create some warm fuzzy feelings ('look how inclusive we are!')
At worst, it was an attempt to abuse the public profile of the Cup for personal gain.
 
:wacko:
Sorry for the rant!

 

I think your being generous when you describe the ADM credentials.

I'm in a charitable mood today...



#22 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 12:50 PM

I think that if the 'trust' was not valid it would have not been accepted back in 1887, or 1857 or 1882. I also feel that if the court did not feel the deed had standng, or that the court did not have jusridiction over the deed, that it would not have accepted the pleadings filed before it at any time. With the precedents that the court has set in relation to the deed I do not think that they would just roll over because someone spends a ton of money on some lawyer like Hamish to try and overturn what has been in place longer than the ISAF has existed. I think it would be seen as it is; a power play by someone to take over the Cup for the financial gain of its public 'value'. EB tried this and failed. Even with a more legitimate YC a run at this may still face a lot of headwind, but it was scary how close EB came to succeeding.

 

Another thing, if a run at it were made then it could be tied-up in court for quite a while, or die on the vine, either by an LE or other B funding an appeal or challenging every move by the hijacker for as long as possible, or by an eventual lack of interest in a rigged game for financal gain. The NYYC may have held onto the Cup for 132 years, playing hardball every step of the way, but I do not think there was much money in it for them. Quite the opposite, they paid-out quite a bit in relative dollars to keep it.

 

All this piece is is a lawyer doing some rain-making. His EB paydays have run out, his LE funded deal has run out, so he is advertising for the next gravy train.



#23 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:03 PM

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.
 
Anyone else see a potential connection?

 
I'm not very interested in the connection and I couldn't care less about ADM. The impulse to personalise everything eliminates discussion and I'm more interested in the argument Ross makes. But I see you didn't start this thread to discuss that.

 

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser.  He was the General Counsel for Alinghi, who created a fake challenger.   We all know what happened there. And you want to discuss high minded legal theory?  How about asking first why he's trying to make this argument? 

 

Ultimately though we should thank the Kiwi legal minds for giving the reason to take the AC into court, for it gave us the '88 Defense, which gave us the first winged cat win.  Then with a different Kiwi lawyers help and advice, Erne$to creates a fake challenger, and we end up with the glorious USA 17 and the biggest wing ever built, anywhere, for anything.   The asskicking of the then Defender was a story for the ages. Probably if Erne$to had picked a real challenger, we'd still be seeing the AC in mono slugs.

 

So ultimately, I am thankful for what Carrottop did in '88 and Ross in '07-'10.

 

Kiwi lawyers  caused the advance of the start of the art of yacht racing. 

 

Should Ross ever be successful in getting his argument in front of the NY Supreme Court, one wonders what the blowback would end up being.

 

He's been making this argument long enough, time for him to either put up or shut up.



#24 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,360 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 10 December 2013 - 03:09 PM

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.
 
Anyone else see a potential connection?

 
I'm not very interested in the connection and I couldn't care less about ADM. The impulse to personalise everything eliminates discussion and I'm more interested in the argument Ross makes. But I see you didn't start this thread to discuss that.

 

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser.  He was the General Counsel for Alinghi, who created a fake challenger.   We all know what happened there. And you want to discuss high minded legal theory?  How about asking first why he's trying to make this argument? 

 

Ultimately though we should thank the Kiwi legal minds for giving the reason to take the AC into court, for it gave us the '88 Defense, which gave us the first winged cat win.  Then with a different Kiwi lawyers help and advice, Erne$to creates a fake challenger, and we end up with the glorious USA 17 and the biggest wing ever built, anywhere, for anything.   The asskicking of the then Defender was a story for the ages. Probably if Erne$to had picked a real challenger, we'd still be seeing the AC in mono slugs.

 

So ultimately, I am thankful for what Carrottop did in '88 and Ross in '07-'10.

 

Kiwi lawyers  caused the advance of the start of the art of yacht racing. 

 

Should Ross ever be successful in getting his argument in front of the NY Supreme Court, one wonders what the blowback would end up being.

 

He's been making this argument long enough, time for him to either put up or shut up.

I would like it if you shut up.



#25 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 06:24 PM

Seeing as you a member of the international media, always carry a pink flag, and used to be a lawyer, no doubt you must be correct.

I'll always be a lawyer, that's what the big certificate on the wall means.  What's your education?  I know you like to foster the impression that you know the law, but do you?

 

And no, I don't mean divorce law.



#26 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:03 PM

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser. 

Hey, so was Oracle for a few good years  

 

I think that if the 'trust' was not valid it would have not been accepted back in 1887, or 1857 or 1882. I also feel that if the court did not feel the deed had standng, or that the court did not have jusridiction over the deed, that it would not have accepted the pleadings filed before it at any time. With the precedents that the court has set in relation to the deed I do not think that they would just roll over because someone spends a ton of money on some lawyer like Hamish to try and overturn what has been in place longer than the ISAF has existed. I think it would be seen as it is; a power play by someone to take over the Cup for the financial gain of its public 'value'. EB tried this and failed. Even with a more legitimate YC a run at this may still face a lot of headwind, but it was scary how close EB came to succeeding.

That's not how courts work HHN; if the litigants don't bring it up, the court is not really empowered to look at it.  If it's a little, easy issue than sometimes they will anyway, but this ain't that.



#27 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:28 PM

/\ ADM CLEAN - JUDICIAL NOTICE - I submit EXHIBIT 1A  -for your perusal -

 

btw I think evilsin is still nervous about hamish ross working in concert with ''others'' to take

 

america's cup and swiss-a- fy  it -

 

except most ''pretend legal  experts ''  like hamish havent studied enough or read the writings on TRUSTS-  

 

ESPECIALLY the english ones - or english trained - 

 

Attached File  HAMISH ROSS IS STILL WRONG 02381 AC TRUST DOC DATABASE.PNG   172.11K   12 downloads



#28 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Interests:Finding spoog for my face.

Posted 10 December 2013 - 07:43 PM

/\ ADM CLEAN - JUDICIAL NOTICE - I submit EXHIBIT 1A  -for your perusal -
 
btw I think evilsin is still nervous about hamish ross working in concert with ''others'' to take
 
america's cup and swiss-a- fy  it -
 
except most ''pretend legal  experts ''  like hamish havent studied enough or read the writings on TRUSTS-  
 
ESPECIALLY the english ones - or english trained - 
 
attachicon.gifHAMISH ROSS IS STILL WRONG 02381 AC TRUST DOC DATABASE.PNG

Of course your soon to be filed suit will solve everything.
How is that going by the way?

#29 SimonN

SimonN

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,971 posts
  • Location:Sydney ex London

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:07 PM

Interesting to note that Ross was employed by the defender in AC34. If all that Huston says about him is correct, and if he really was the embodiment of evil and incompetence and deserved to be demonised after what he did in AC33, why did they give him a job?

 

Or could it be that he is highly regarded by the AC community (not us idiots on a forum but those who really know) and as such, was retained for his knowledge, skill and insight?



#30 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:11 PM

Interesting to note that Ross was employed by the defender in AC34. If all that Huston says about him is correct, and if he really was the embodiment of evil and incompetence and deserved to be demonised after what he did in AC33, why did they give him a job?

 

Or could it be that he is highly regarded by the AC community (not us idiots on a forum but those who really know) and as such, was retained for his knowledge, skill and insight?

''Interesting to note that Ross was employed by the defender in AC34.''  

 

:lol: 

 

further confirming the ian murray/acrm scam was aligned with ''defender/offender'' -ggyc and evilsin 

 

thanks for the exclusive scoop Simonn



#31 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:15 PM

Interesting to note that Ross was employed by the defender in AC34. If all that Huston says about him is correct, and if he really was the embodiment of evil and incompetence and deserved to be demonised after what he did in AC33, why did they give him a job?

 

Or could it be that he is highly regarded by the AC community (not us idiots on a forum but those who really know) and as such, was retained for his knowledge, skill and insight?

 

Why Ross was hired by ACRM is a very good question.  

 

Only thing I can figure out is that Coutts prefers Kiwi's, and anything non-American, other than Larry's money.



#32 The Advocate

The Advocate

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,360 posts
  • Location:32.00.13 S 115.50.73 E

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:23 PM

Interesting to note that Ross was employed by the defender in AC34. If all that Huston says about him is correct, and if he really was the embodiment of evil and incompetence and deserved to be demonised after what he did in AC33, why did they give him a job?

 

Or could it be that he is highly regarded by the AC community (not us idiots on a forum but those who really know) and as such, was retained for his knowledge, skill and insight?

 

Why Ross was hired by ACRM is a very good question.  

 

Only thing I can figure out is that Coutts prefers Kiwi's, and anything non-American, other than Larry's money.

And Australians. He appears to like Australians.



#33 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2013 - 09:28 PM

the best race management money [evilsin'$ ] can buy 

 

:lol:

 

normal_GMR_AC34JulyD8_1223.jpg

 

Attached File  normal_GMR_AC34JulyD8_1223.jpg   39.4K   1 downloads



#34 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,804 posts

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:27 PM

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

#35 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 10 December 2013 - 10:51 PM

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right based on trust law and previous decisions, but it is a pretty goddamned complicated and convoluted issue that brings in Trust jurisprudence, several dozen statutes, rules against perpetuities, and the evidentiary hurdles that reinterpreting old laws carries.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.  Without a hardcore team of great lawyers to battle against the guys Ellison, the NYYC, and everyone else that wants to see the cup continue to grow would invariably throw at it.

hamish also confuses the components of the true AC with his various verbage and spin -

 

he and many other pretend legal experts have done that and rest including posters here just regurge it -

 

lost in their confusion is the real understanding of GLS and applicable trust law -

 

I have posted hundreds of valid exhibits to assist in the clarification -

 

the ''race'' and the ''trust '' and the ''deed of gift '' are all under different laws and regulations - and should be regulated accordingly-

 

no isaf cant do that hamish -fail-  isaf has done its damage since its illegal takeover of IYRU -

 

The International Yacht racing union, IYRU, was formed in 1904, when Major Brooke Heckstall-Smith AINA, then Secretary of the Yacht Racing Association (now the Royal Yachting Association) wrote to the Yacht Club de France, pointing out the desirability of holding a conference for the purpose of devising an International Rule of Measurement for Racing Yachts acceptable to all European Countries. As a result, an International Conference of Yacht Measurement was held in London in January and June 1906, at which the Metre Rule was developed. This group went on to adopt a formal Constitution after a meeting at the Yacht Club de France in Paris on October 14, 1907 so this is seen as the formation date of the International Yacht Racing Union (IYRU). A more detailed history is available on the ISAF website.[1] On August 5, 1996, the IYRU changed its name to the International Sailing Federation (ISAF).

 

so co-mingling those factors  by ross and others have contaminated his own confused opinion -  

 

this ruling is good to see the diffs-

 

http://www.leagle.co...9955958F3d1_159



#36 Kahlessa

Kahlessa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Books, history, science, adventure, discovering life's hidden secrets

Posted 10 December 2013 - 11:23 PM

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

+10



#37 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:15 AM

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

ADM (and its well-respected lawyers, MWE) made that argument and the Court gave it the back of the hand.



#38 Teal67

Teal67

    Anarchist

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

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:25 AM

I expect that if anyone ever succeeds in "breaking" the trust, there will never be another America's Cup race. If the trust is declared invalid, the heirs of Schuyler could likely tie it up forever arguing that the cup should be returned to their family as the original owner of the property that was given over "IN TRUST" as a perpetual challenge trophy. If the trust is invalid, the gift of the cup as a trust was invalid and the property should be returned to its owner.

 

Those wishing to change the cup (Hamish, MSP, EB, etc.) might wish to be careful as what they wish for may not be the end result.



#39 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:30 AM

 

 


 

Hamish has believed this for a long time; essentially he thinks that if a club brings a suit to declare the trust invalid, it will succeed.  In a vacuum, he'd probably be right.

 

But we don't live in a vacuum.  We live in a world of some seriously badass lawyers, and Hamish showed yet again last year - when he was counsel for Iain Murray - that he just doesn't have a handle on what makes the the law tick up here in the states.

And then there is the little fact that he was General Counsel for the team, Alinghi, that was representing the then Trustee, SNG, and he never made this argument to the NY Supreme Court.  All the while he was creating a fake club to be the Challenger.  So yeah...there's that to.

 

So your argument is that Ross must be mistaken because one of his clients was a stinker.

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

Since one of the thrusts of the AC34 protocol was to refer disputes to the Jury rather than a court, Ross certainly is not the only person holding the view that that lawyering hurts the Cup.

 

No....it is my opinion that Hamish Ross is a duplicitous piece of shit.   And I mean no offense to shit.  Alinghi was not a client, it was his employer.  He was advancing this argument while he was engaged in helping to craft the protocol for AC 33, which gave ALL the power of EVERYTHING to the Defender.  He tried the whole "Having" argument.

 

And yes, there have been several lawyers who have tried to advance the argument about the Deed of Gift not being a charitable trust, and one pretend lawyer in MSP.  So in the end, MSP and Ross are actually far closer in ideology than apart.  They only differ by degree of the evidence and timeline they present.

 

The only way the Deed is ever going to be challenged successful in the NY Court is for there to be something so egregious with money that the AG has to step in, or, the Defender goes to the Court and asks for it to be amended as Ross wants.  He was with a then defender for AC 33, yet he never elected to take that path.

 

And the asshole actually works for the more recent defender, and just weeks after his employ is up, he starts up with this crap again. He's just a lawyer looking to present a problem that might need to be solved, to present something that might cause a bit of a distraction for the defender.  So the only real question is which Challenger will hire him to go fuck with Larry, his most recent employer.

 

To him I say, good luck with that.  And you better be careful what you wish for.

 

Larry gets accused of fixing the game to his advantage, but clearly he did not do so.  The protocol for AC 34 never would have been allowed to exist but for his approval.  So Larry clearly wanted the lawyers out of the equation, and yet what happens, here comes ADM with seemingly a bunch of evidence from....Alinghi.

 

Anyone else see a potential connection?

 

Only that ADM's attorney was EB's last losing attorney - but I doubt EB holds a grudge after being pounded time after time in court and getting crushed on the course in Valencia after being so stupid as to think he was better than JS.

 

I had the pleasure of bursting his bubble on the flight into Valencia from Madrid. One cocky SOB fallen when all was said and done, and he had no idea of EB's history and lack of success with attorneys on the flight. 

long-john-baldry-and-rod-stewart-glammed

That was an enjoyable conversation.



#40 PeterHuston

PeterHuston

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,127 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:40 AM

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

 

I'd rather not attack the person, but in this instance, I must.

 

Ross just ended his employment with Larry Ellison. And now he wants to turn around and try to fuck Larry??? (btw, good luck with that Hamish)

 

Well....Larry surely doesn't need me to protect him, but enough is enough with the bullshit from the likes of Hamish Ross.  Hamish Ross gave us CNEV,  that is reason enough for him to be excommunicated from the sport.  This is just not the sort thing upon which the principles of the sport were built, the reason it is so great.



#41 jtm

jtm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 01:11 AM

having isaf handle conflict makes sense to keep it out of the courts. However it is the America's cup and there is not much more American than courts.



#42 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 01:55 AM

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

 

I'd rather not attack the person, but in this instance, I must.

 

Ross just ended his employment with Larry Ellison. And now he wants to turn around and try to fuck Larry??? (btw, good luck with that Hamish)

 

Well....Larry surely doesn't need me to protect him, but enough is enough with the bullshit from the likes of Hamish Ross.  Hamish Ross gave us CNEV,  that is reason enough for him to be excommunicated from the sport.  This is just not the sort thing upon which the principles of the sport were built, the reason it is so great.

ph -so you object to hamish and want him excomm'd -

 

but did you object to him -when he worked for evilsin- demon ehman  [ like you claim he did  ] ?

 

or are you objecting to him now that hamish isnt working for your dear evilsin and demon ehman -?

 

the sport ? :lol: 

 

 hilarious

 

you mean the $PORT since evilsin has turned the fiasco into ''failed '' done deals with cheaters  ggyc - 

 

and when did you object to cheaters ggyc and their bs - oh thats ok since your dear demon ehman condoned it and participated -

 

thanks for sharing  



#43 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 03:11 AM

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser. 

Hey, so was Oracle for a few good years  

 

>>I think that if the 'trust' was not valid it would have not been accepted back in 1887, or 1857 or 1882. I also feel that if the court did not feel the deed had standng, or that the court did not have jusridiction over the deed, that it would not have accepted the pleadings filed before it at any time. With the precedents that the court has set in relation to the deed I do not think that they would just roll over because someone spends a ton of money on some lawyer like Hamish to try and overturn what has been in place longer than the ISAF has existed. I think it would be seen as it is; a power play by someone to take over the Cup for the financial gain of its public 'value'. EB tried this and failed. Even with a more legitimate YC a run at this may still face a lot of headwind, but it was scary how close EB came to succeeding.

That's not how courts work HHN; if the litigants don't bring it up, the court is not really empowered to look at it.  If it's a little, easy issue than sometimes they will anyway, but this ain't that.

 

 

Doing some homework tonight, see the attached from our former Sailor Chick of the Week Maureen Mahoney, starting at 10:30:

 

http://www.nycourts..../asx/021009.asx

 

I am reviewing more to see where standing was discussed. This may or may not support my ideas of the jurisdiction of the NYSC over the DoG, but to my simple mind it does touch on the subject.

 

This should be played on Turner Classic Movies from time-to-time........................



#44 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 05:22 AM

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

ADM (and its well-respected lawyers, MWE) made that argument and the Court gave it the back of the hand.

 

I haven't taken a lot of interest in the ADM case but really? ADM argued that the charitable trust was invalid? How would that help them achieve their goal?



#45 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 05:28 AM

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

 

I'd rather not attack the person, but in this instance, I must.

 

Ross just ended his employment with Larry Ellison. And now he wants to turn around and try to fuck Larry??? (btw, good luck with that Hamish)

 

Well....Larry surely doesn't need me to protect him, but enough is enough with the bullshit from the likes of Hamish Ross.  Hamish Ross gave us CNEV,  that is reason enough for him to be excommunicated from the sport.  This is just not the sort thing upon which the principles of the sport were built, the reason it is so great.

I thought ACRM was independent?  Only Iain Murray had the contractual ability to hire or fire any of his own appointees, including Hamish.  So why would you call him an 'employee' of Larry Ellison?  



#46 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:45 AM

 

I don't see why counter-debating his ideas has to be also a character-attack.

The idea to keep sports rules adjudicated by sports authorities is good on several levels. But the idea to completely strip the Cup from judicial oversight by the NYSC seems a little dangerous to me.

 

I'd rather not attack the person, but in this instance, I must.

 

Ross just ended his employment with Larry Ellison. And now he wants to turn around and try to fuck Larry??? (btw, good luck with that Hamish)

 

Well....Larry surely doesn't need me to protect him, but enough is enough with the bullshit from the likes of Hamish Ross.  Hamish Ross gave us CNEV,  that is reason enough for him to be excommunicated from the sport.  This is just not the sort thing upon which the principles of the sport were built, the reason it is so great.

I thought ACRM was independent?  Only Iain Murray had the contractual ability to hire or fire any of his own appointees, including Hamish.  So why would you call him an 'employee' of Larry Ellison?  

 

You could argue with a clock over the time of day if it meant creating controversy and a few additional hits.



#47 MR.CLEAN

MR.CLEAN

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,337 posts
  • Location:Everywhere you want to be
  • Interests:.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 07:12 AM

isn't it great?  And I get paid to be here.  Keep on clicking.



#48 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:04 AM

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

ADM (and its well-respected lawyers, MWE) made that argument and the Court gave it the back of the hand.

 

I haven't taken a lot of interest in the ADM case but really? ADM argued that the charitable trust was invalid? How would that help them achieve their goal?

You had elected to receive a reminder about the appearance 1 business day in advance for the following court appearance:

0653419/2011 - AFRICAN DIASPORA MARITIME vs. GOLDEN GATE YACHT CLUB
Appearance Date: Thursday December 12, 2013
County: New York / Part: IAS PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 39
Justice: KAPNICK, BARBARA
On For: SUPREME TRIAL / Action: 
Comment(s): 10:00 AM
Plaintiff Attorney: MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
Defendant Attorney: BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

Please do not reply to this email.

If you have questions about this appearance please contact the court directly. 

You may find contact information for the courts online - go to http://www.nycourthelp.gov/ and select Court Facts then Court Information for a list of addresses and telephone numbers.



#49 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:22 AM

^

 

That doesn't say anything about ADM's argument?



#50 Alpha FB

Alpha FB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 912 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:45 AM

 

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser. 

Hey, so was Oracle for a few good years  

 

>>I think that if the 'trust' was not valid it would have not been accepted back in 1887, or 1857 or 1882. I also feel that if the court did not feel the deed had standng, or that the court did not have jusridiction over the deed, that it would not have accepted the pleadings filed before it at any time. With the precedents that the court has set in relation to the deed I do not think that they would just roll over because someone spends a ton of money on some lawyer like Hamish to try and overturn what has been in place longer than the ISAF has existed. I think it would be seen as it is; a power play by someone to take over the Cup for the financial gain of its public 'value'. EB tried this and failed. Even with a more legitimate YC a run at this may still face a lot of headwind, but it was scary how close EB came to succe

eding.

That's not how courts work HHN; if the litigants don't bring it up, the court is not really empowered to look at it.  If it's a little, easy issue than sometimes they will anyway, but this ain't that.

 

Doing some homework tonight, see the attached from our former Sailor Chick of the Week Maureen Mahoney, starting at 10:30:

 

http://www.nycourts..../asx/021009.asx

 

I am reviewing more to see where standing was discussed. This may or may not support my ideas of the jurisdiction of the NYSC over the DoG, but to my simple mind it does touch on the subject.

 

This should be played on Turner Classic Movies from time-to-time........................

 

 

Wow! Never knew there were video records of the arguments on this case...

 

Fascinating to watch, Particularly to see the almost inept argumentation from Ostrager for SNG and the apparently different interpretations of the DoG between SNG and CNEV - which by the tone of the judges questions, must have had some influence on their ultimate decisions.



#51 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 12:58 PM

 

 

The facts show that Ross is a proven loser. 

Hey, so was Oracle for a few good years  

 

>>>I think that if the 'trust' was not valid it would have not been accepted back in 1887, or 1857 or 1882. I also feel that if the court did not feel the deed had standng, or that the court did not have jusridiction over the deed, that it would not have accepted the pleadings filed before it at any time. With the precedents that the court has set in relation to the deed I do not think that they would just roll over because someone spends a ton of money on some lawyer like Hamish to try and overturn what has been in place longer than the ISAF has existed. I think it would be seen as it is; a power play by someone to take over the Cup for the financial gain of its public 'value'. EB tried this and failed. Even with a more legitimate YC a run at this may still face a lot of headwind, but it was scary how close EB came to succe

eding.lockquote>

That's not how courts work HHN; if the litigants don't bring it up, the court is not really empowered to look at it.  If it's a little, easy issue than sometimes they will anyway, but this ain't that.

 

Doing some homework tonight, see the attached from our former Sailor Chick of the Week Maureen Mahoney, starting at 10:30:

 

http://www.nycourts..../asx/021009.asx

 

I am reviewing more to see where standing was discussed. This may or may not support my ideas of the jurisdiction of the NYSC over the DoG, but to my simple mind it does touch on the subject.

 

This should be played on Turner Classic Movies from time-to-time........................

 

Wow! Never knew there were video records of the arguments on this case...

 

Fascinating to watch, Particularly to see the almost inept argumentation from Ostrager for SNG and the apparently different interpretations of the DoG between SNG and CNEV - which by the tone of the judges questions, must have had some influence on their ultimate decisions.

 

 

Watched this live online back then, replayed it several times and was blown away how BBBLO was so bad in this appearance. Reading the transcripts was bad enough but live was something else. Re-watching it last night after all this time was even more amazing. He was supposed to be the Jedi Mind Bending Master. This was the only hearing recorded as far as I know in this case.

 

What I was looking for was if there was a question of the court having standing over the DoG and this question being raised at some point early in the process in regards to the rainmaking claim that HR is arguing for. In the short time I spent looking around this was the best item I found, and it is a direct question asked by the justice.

 

Even though the AC DoG is relatively trivial compared to some of the issues the court has to consider, after all the precedence out there from 150 odd years, and the fact that GLS filed the DoG with the courts, is something that would not be given-up easily.

 

But I'm no pettifogging lawyer.........



#52 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 01:36 PM

 

IIRC one of the attorneys who previously turned up here to post also took the view that the charitable status of the Deed probably would not bear scrutiny but that it would only come under examination if someone with standing and suitably deep pocket wanted to make that argument. Since such litigants generally want to win the AC game rather than terminate it, that has never happened.

 

ADM (and its well-respected lawyers, MWE) made that argument and the Court gave it the back of the hand.

 

I haven't taken a lot of interest in the ADM case but really? ADM argued that the charitable trust was invalid? How would that help them achieve their goal?

 

ADM advanced two claims: one for breach of contract under the Protocol; and one for breach of fiduciary duty under the DOG. With respect to the DOG claims, GGYC moved to dismiss them based in part on the fact that the DOG is a charitable trust that limits greatly the parties that have standing to sue with respect to it and that ADM was not one of those limited parties with standing.

 

In response, and in an attempt to bolster its right to sue under the DOG, ADM argued that the DOG was not a charitable trust (it is a sporting event, after all) such that the standing restrictions that typically exist with respect to charitable trusts do not apply. The trial court summarily dismissed ADM's argument, citing Mercury Bay and GGYC for the proposition that New York courts had already concluded that the DOG was a charitable trust. On that precedent, the trial court dismissed ADM's DOG claims on standing grounds.

 

More importantly, the Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal, saying (tersely) after addressing the breach of contract claim, "ADM's remaining arguments have no merit as it has no basis for asserting a beneficiary interest in a charitable trust.  Nor does it have standing to assert a breach of fiduciary duty claim." (citations omitted).

 

In other words, the Court of Appeals confirmed as early as June, 2013, that the DOG is a charitable trust.



#53 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 02:47 PM

Yes. Although AFAIK in Mercury Bay the court in fact ducked the issue of whether the Trust was charitable. http://www.law.corne...ap/I90_0103.htm

 

4. While there is authority for the proposition that trusts created for the purpose of promoting sporting events are not true charitable trusts (see Restatement [Second] of Trusts, § 374 at 262; 2A Scott & Fratcher, Trusts [4th Ed] § 374.6A at 227-228; In Re Nottage, 2 Ch 649 [England 1895] [trust to promote the sport of yacht racing is not a charitable trust]), no one has disputed the characterization of this trust as a charitable trust.

 

It seems a bit of a stretch for the court in ADM to regard that as a prior decision. It was more of a "nobody has asked us so we don't have to decide".



#54 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 03:02 PM

Yes. Although AFAIK in Mercury Bay the court in fact ducked the issue of whether the Trust was charitable. http://www.law.corne...ap/I90_0103.htm

 

4. While there is authority for the proposition that trusts created for the purpose of promoting sporting events are not true charitable trusts (see Restatement [Second] of Trusts, § 374 at 262; 2A Scott & Fratcher, Trusts [4th Ed] § 374.6A at 227-228; In Re Nottage, 2 Ch 649 [England 1895] [trust to promote the sport of yacht racing is not a charitable trust]), no one has disputed the characterization of this trust as a charitable trust.

 

It seems a bit of a stretch for the court in ADM to regard that as a prior decision. It was more of a "nobody has asked us so we don't have to decide".

 

You are absolutely correct that the Mercury Bay court glanced off the issue rather than addressing it directly. Nonetheless, the trial court in ADM relied upon Mercury Bay for the proposition that the matter had already been decided (or at least finding that the DOG is a charitable trust is the correct decision) and, more importantly, the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The fact that the appellate court recently gave that interpretation its imprimatur will make it much more difficult to argue that the DOG is not a charitable trust. To the extent any avenue exists for claiming that the DOG is not a charitable trust, you have identified it (i.e., that the decisions of the trial court and appellate court in ADM mischaracterized the holding of Mercury Bay). That is rarely a winning argument.



#55 dogwatch

dogwatch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,667 posts
  • Location:South Coast, UK
  • Interests:Racing in all forms.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 03:25 PM

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.



#56 ~HHN92~

~HHN92~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,290 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:15 PM

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend. Or for ISAF to administer for HR.

 

 

Ostrager was kind-of going down the same mine vs Mahoney, and also noted that the SNG protocol was 'inclusive' to the 19 challenges that were submitted to SNG, and that GGYC was 'exclusive' with its challenge. Needless to say he lost that argument.



#57 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:25 PM

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?



#58 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:43 PM

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?



#59 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 06:49 PM

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic, one that is poor advocacy and rarely ever successful. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

 

:lol:



#60 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 07:32 PM

 

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

at least you recognize I was right -in your post admittal -I give you credit for that -

 

in your prior posts you did not understand that they did as I stated -

 

I am glad I helped from  your confusion -

 

adm attys played that both ways sometimes on same page -

 

I think they were trying to use 2 parallel concepts because either are completely adjudicated -

 

you know that right ? 



#61 porthos

porthos

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 08:51 PM

 

 

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

at least you recognize I was right -in your post admittal -I give you credit for that -

 

in your prior posts you did not understand that they did as I stated -

 

I am glad I helped from  your confusion -

 

adm attys played that both ways sometimes on same page -

 

I think they were trying to use 2 parallel concepts because either are completely adjudicated -

 

you know that right ? 

Yes, Matlock, where would I be without your searing intellect to set me straight? You whose mind is the mighty iron jaw that can close but halfway, never fully grasping that which it seeks.



#62 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:26 PM

 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

you know that right ? 

Yes, Matlock, where would I be without your searing intellect to set me straight? You whose mind is the mighty iron jaw that can close but halfway, never fully grasping that which it seeks.

 

:lol:



#63 aldo

aldo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Interests:Finding spoog for my face.

Posted 11 December 2013 - 09:28 PM





Thanks, interesting.
 
I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -
 
they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -
 
re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -
 
btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -
 
citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 
 
because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?


 
Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.
 
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?


at least you recognize I was right -in your post admittal -I give you credit for that -
 
in your prior posts you did not understand that they did as I stated -
 
I am glad I helped from  your confusion -
 
adm attys played that both ways sometimes on same page -
 
I think they were trying to use 2 parallel concepts because either are completely adjudicated -
 
you know that right ?


Yes, Matlock, where would I be without your searing intellect to set me straight? You whose mind is the mighty iron jaw that can close but halfway, never fully grasping that which it seeks.


Holy crap, that's funny.

#64 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 10:38 PM


 


 


 


Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

at least you recognize I was right -in your post admittal -I give you credit for that -

 

in your prior posts you did not understand that they did as I stated -

 

I am glad I helped from  your confusion -

 

adm attys played that both ways sometimes on same page -

 

I think they were trying to use 2 parallel concepts because either are completely adjudicated -

 

you know that right ? 

Yes, Matlock, where would I be without your searing intellect to set me straight? You whose mind is the mighty iron jaw that can close but halfway, never fully grasping that which it seeks.

your welcome

 

you being wrong and corrected by me shouldnt upset you so much - pity ..

 

ffs -your lack of grasp on these matters is funny since you claim to be some type of lawyer somewhere -

 

you obviously have very little trust law knowledge or experience including actual court trial experience like I do-

 

in your pretend world being wrong pretending your knowledgeable in trust law here -actually is hilarious -

 

I do appreciate your context hyperbole thesis[s]  - on some of your posts - 

 

including you incorporating my corrections on your errors posts and adjusting your thesis accordingly -

 

btw dont you see that adm still has  a shot at being a defender candidate in defender series - you know that right ?

 

no ?  :lol:



#65 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 11 December 2013 - 11:03 PM

 

 

 

Thanks, interesting.

 

I'm still bemused that ADM advanced the argument at all, since taken to it's logical conclusion, no charitable trust means no deed of gift, means no America's Cup for the ADM to contend to defend.

you and porthos missed the point - adm argued and filed arguments pleaing both sides of that -

 

they were playing both angles to see which one would get the court and ggyc to react which they did -

 

re read the filings they were all over the trust -bene claim - but also acted like it wast valid because ggyc isnt a trustee -

 

btw in merc bay court did confirm ac trophy with deed was a char trust -

 

citing their un applicable trust law interpts doesnt change anything - 

 

because if the dissent was the majority -it would have turned out different - you know that , right - ?

 

Yes, ADM used the insane goat tactic. They argued both that the DOG was not a charitable trust such that no special standing was needed, but that if it were a charitable trust, ADM had a specialized interest in the trust to convey standing. It is a poor technique that almost always loses. The courts, trial and appellate, rejected both of those arguments and in doing so specifically confirmed that the DOG is a charitable trust.

 

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, you know that, right?

at least you recognize I was right -in your post admittal -I give you credit for that -

 

in your prior posts you did not understand that they did as I stated -

 

I am glad I helped from  your confusion -

 

adm attys played that both ways sometimes on same page -

 

I think they were trying to use 2 parallel concepts because either are completely adjudicated -

 

you know that right ? 

Yes, Matlock, where would I be without your searing intellect to set me straight? You whose mind is the mighty iron jaw that can close but halfway, never fully grasping that which it seeks.

I guess if you think I am matlock 

 

that means your either opie or barney fife    :lol:



#66 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 11 December 2013 - 11:40 PM

Why is it that being right about something that doesn't matter still doesn't matter ?

 

How's the famous AC trust going ?

 

Thought you said AC34 would never happen and everyone would go to prison, about 1,000 times :)



#67 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 12 December 2013 - 02:27 AM

Why is it that being right about something that doesn't matter still doesn't matter ?

 

 

How's the famous AC trust going ?

 

Thought you said AC34 would never happen and everyone would go to prison, about 1,000 times :)

good point about your own posts -sw soiler = otis   :lol:

 

\/  below - nice foto of you and spinray at cheaters bought club ggyc 

 

AndyGriffithShowRemshawHouse63.jpg



#68 SW Sailor

SW Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,912 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 08:41 AM

Right about the wrong things, wrong about the right things - some things never change with you. This is more like it Pocahontas;

Attached Files



#69 Tornado-Cat

Tornado-Cat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,148 posts

Posted 12 December 2013 - 01:44 PM

Right about the wrong things, wrong about the right things - some things never change with you. This is more like it Pocahontas;

Well,  that is another pretty classy post from you SWS.  Pretty much your signature.  :)



#70 hydrossos

hydrossos

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Location:Long Island, NY
  • Interests:Club racing and bay cruising.

Posted 14 December 2013 - 03:04 PM

USA, USA, USA!  Didn't read this but title appeared to be French complaining about something.



#71 MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_PILGRIMS

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Location:33.98.n 118.45. w

Posted 18 December 2013 - 09:10 PM

Index Number: 653419/2011
The following case which you have subscribed to in eTrack has been updated. Changes from the last update are shown inred and are annotated.

Court: New York Civil Supreme
Index Number: 653419/2011
Case Name: AFRICAN DIASPORA MARITIME vs. GOLDEN GATE YACHT CLUB
Case Type: Cd-Econtract
Track: Complex
Upstate RJI Number: 
Disposition Date: 01/18/2013
Date NOI Due: 
NOI Filed: 
Calendar Number: 
RJI Filed: 01/17/2012
Jury Status: 
Justice Name: KAPNICK, BARBARA

Attorney/Firm for Plaintiff: 
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP
340 MADISON AV, 17TH FL 
NEW YORK, NY 10173
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Attorney/Firm for Defendant: 
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
575 LEXINGTON AVENUE - 7TH FLR
NEW YORK, NY 10022
Attorney Type: Attorney Of Record
Status: Active

Last Appearance:
Appearance Date: 12/18/2013 --- Information updated
Appearance Time: 
On For: Supreme Trial --- Information updated
Appearance Outcome: Prelim Conference Adjourned
Justice: KAPNICK, BARBARA
Part: IAS PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 39
Comments: 10:00 AM


Future Appearances:
Appearance Date: 02/05/2014 --- Information updated
Appearance Time: 
On For: Supreme Trial
Appearance Outcome: 
Justice: KAPNICK, BARBARA
Part: IAS PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 39
Comments: 10:00 AM



Older appearances may exist but are not shown.

Motions: Motion Number: 3
Date Filed: 07/18/2013
Filed By: PLAINT
Relief Sought: Prel Injunction/Temp Rest Ordr
Submit Date: 
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 07-AUG-13
MOTION DISPOSED AS INDICATED
Before Justice: KAPNICK
Decision: Short Form Order 
Order Signed Date: 08/07/2013

Motion Number: 2
Date Filed: 05/16/2012
Filed By: DEF
Relief Sought: Dismiss Action
Submit Date: 07/30/2012
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 18-JAN-13
CASE DISPOSED
Before Justice: KAPNICK
Decision: Short Form Order 
Order Signed Date: 01/18/2013

Motion Number: 1
Date Filed: 01/17/2012
Filed By: DEF
Relief Sought: Dism Action/Inconvenient Forum
Submit Date: 
Answer Demanded: No
Status: Decided: 25-JUN-12
MOTION DISPOSED AS INDICATED
Before Justice: KAPNICK
Decision: Short Form Order 
Order Signed Date: 06/25/2012
 



#72 ~Stingray~

~Stingray~

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,804 posts

Posted 19 December 2013 - 12:41 AM

Are they still asking LE to build AC72's for them, so Kithcart can Captain one into AC34? Or has it by now nakedly reduced into a $hakedown attempt?

Wierd, sure wish the motion to divulge the lawsuit's backer had succeeded, or will soon.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users