Jump to content

AC33 Feb. 10, 20010


dacapo

Recommended Posts

MAHGUAH SAY --GOT A QUESTION--

...

OK BEFORE YOU START OVER RE--ACTING

 

JUST LAYOUT THE D OF G REQ'S RACE COURSE AND TELL ME OR SHOW ME?

 

HOW AC CAN BE DONE THERE? LEGALLY AND DONT FORGET THE VENUE IS MORE THAN YOU THINK-

 

SEE LEGAL DEFINE AND REMEMBER "VENUE " IS NOT A WORD OR TERM USED IN D OF G-ON THIS--

 

NOTE- WHATEVER HAPPENED BEFORE REALLY DOSENT MATTER-

ADD;;;;; IF THE SNG VALENCIA VENUE ITS LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL -LAW OF THE SEA -AND ETC CONVENTIONS-

 

CAN SNG OFFER IT AS A VENUE= AC RACE COURSE ?

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that, because the DOG course will take the boats more than 12 miles offshore and therefore into international waters, the race will no longer be "in" Valencia and therefore not compliant with Cahn's order? You think Cahn was ordering them to race down the high street?

 

 

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY

Are you seriously trying to argue that, because the DOG course will take the boats more than 12 miles offshore and therefore into international waters,

 

COMPULSORY JURISDICTION AND EQUITABLE MARITIME BOUNDARY DELIMITATION

 

 

the race will no longer be "in" Valencia ITS A CITY /PORT NOT A COUNTRY- and therefore not compliant with Cahn's order?

 

NOT D OF G COMPLIANT SO YEAH CAHN;S ORDER HAS AN ERROR OR 2--

 

You think Cahn was ordering them to race down the high street?

 

MIGHT AS WELL HAVE -- NY HAS ZERO AUTHORITY TO FORCE ANYTHING PAST NY STATE -AND THOSE STATE WATER 3MI

 

INCLUDING LATEST MAY 14 ORDER

 

JUDGE -SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER GGYC TO TRY AND "RUSH " USCG OR THE DOCUMENTATION CERT FOR VESSELS=CHR

 

AND SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT A DOC CERT VESSEL PER D OF G AND KNOWING ITS GOING IN FOREIGN WATERS- CHR /USCG AFFECTS AND

 

HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY-- YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE A BOAT TO FOREIGN WATERS AND JUST SHOW UP WITHOUT USCG DOCUMENTATION-?

 

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ?

 

CHECK USCG AND LAW OF SEA TREATY, ETC

 

OR SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT WITH EVIDENCE ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAHGUAH SAY --GOT A QUESTION--

...

OK BEFORE YOU START OVER RE--ACTING

 

JUST LAYOUT THE D OF G REQ'S RACE COURSE AND TELL ME OR SHOW ME?

 

HOW AC CAN BE DONE THERE? LEGALLY AND DONT FORGET THE VENUE IS MORE THAN YOU THINK-

 

SEE LEGAL DEFINE AND REMEMBER "VENUE " IS NOT A WORD OR TERM USED IN D OF G-ON THIS--

 

NOTE- WHATEVER HAPPENED BEFORE REALLY DOSENT MATTER-

ADD;;;;; IF THE SNG VALENCIA VENUE ITS LEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL -LAW OF THE SEA -AND ETC CONVENTIONS-

 

CAN SNG OFFER IT AS A VENUE= AC RACE COURSE ?

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that, because the DOG course will take the boats more than 12 miles offshore and therefore into international waters, the race will no longer be "in" Valencia and therefore not compliant with Cahn's order? You think Cahn was ordering them to race down the high street?

 

 

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY

Are you seriously trying to argue that, because the DOG course will take the boats more than 12 miles offshore and therefore into international waters,

 

COMPULSORY JURISDICTION AND EQUITABLE MARITIME BOUNDARY DELIMITATION

 

 

the race will no longer be "in" Valencia ITS A CITY /PORT NOT A COUNTRY- and therefore not compliant with Cahn's order?

 

NOT D OF G COMPLIANT SO YEAH CAHN;S ORDER HAS AN ERROR OR 2--

 

You think Cahn was ordering them to race down the high street?

 

MIGHT AS WELL HAVE -- NY HAS ZERO AUTHORITY TO FORCE ANYTHING PAST NY STATE -AND THOSE STATE WATER 3MI

 

INCLUDING LATEST MAY 14 ORDER

 

JUDGE -SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER GGYC TO TRY AND "RUSH " USCG OR THE DOCUMENTATION CERT FOR VESSELS=CHR

 

AND SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT A DOC CERT VESSEL PER D OF G AND KNOWING ITS GOING IN FOREIGN WATERS- CHR /USCG AFFECTS AND

 

HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY-- YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE A BOAT TO FOREIGN WATERS AND JUST SHOW UP WITHOUT USCG DOCUMENTATION-?

 

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ?

 

CHECK USCG AND LAW OF SEA TREATY, ETC

 

OR SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT WITH EVIDENCE ?

 

Sand yachts and beach volley ball? Nice. And why not? That judge is sure as hell a lot smarter than the rest of us!

Link to post
Share on other sites
INCLUDING LATEST MAY 14 ORDER

 

JUDGE -SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER GGYC TO TRY AND "RUSH " USCG OR THE DOCUMENTATION CERT FOR VESSELS=CHR

 

AND SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT A DOC CERT VESSEL PER D OF G AND KNOWING ITS GOING IN FOREIGN WATERS- CHR /USCG AFFECTS AND

 

HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY-- YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE A BOAT TO FOREIGN WATERS AND JUST SHOW UP WITHOUT USCG DOCUMENTATION-?

 

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ?

 

CHECK USCG AND LAW OF SEA TREATY, ETC

 

OR SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT WITH EVIDENCE ?

 

Jeez, you are really are one nasty aggressive little injun.

 

First, I have no need to provide any "evidence" as I'm not proposing any "argument". I was just pointing out that you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to check any law of sea treaties as they are simply irrelevant.

 

Second, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the judge has ordered BOR to rush to get any particular documentation. The deed says CHR ASAP, the judge reiterated this, as a condition of the validity of the challenge (which has nothing to do with the legality of sailing a boat in the waters off Valencia). That's all.

 

Third, it's pretty obvious that anyone who imports a boat, either in pieces or afloat, into the EU has to comply with certain customs and import regulations. This applies to the Swiss as well as the USAmericans. No big conspiracy there. Same the world over. The US court hasn't been asked to overrule this and hasn't purported to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
INCLUDING LATEST MAY 14 ORDER

 

JUDGE -SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER GGYC TO TRY AND "RUSH " USCG OR THE DOCUMENTATION CERT FOR VESSELS=CHR

 

AND SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT A DOC CERT VESSEL PER D OF G AND KNOWING ITS GOING IN FOREIGN WATERS- CHR /USCG AFFECTS AND

 

HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY-- YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE A BOAT TO FOREIGN WATERS AND JUST SHOW UP WITHOUT USCG DOCUMENTATION-?

 

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ?

 

CHECK USCG AND LAW OF SEA TREATY, ETC

 

OR SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT WITH EVIDENCE ?

 

Jeez, you are really are one nasty aggressive little injun.

 

First, I have no need to provide any "evidence" as I'm not proposing any "argument". I was just pointing out that you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to check any law of sea treaties as they are simply irrelevant.

 

Second, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the judge has ordered BOR to rush to get any particular documentation. The deed says CHR ASAP, the judge reiterated this, as a condition of the validity of the challenge (which has nothing to do with the legality of sailing a boat in the waters off Valencia). That's all.

 

Third, it's pretty obvious that anyone who imports a boat, either in pieces or afloat, into the EU has to comply with certain customs and import regulations. This applies to the Swiss as well as the USAmericans. No big conspiracy there. Same the world over. The US court hasn't been asked to overrule this and hasn't purported to do so.

You're doing better than me having an arguement with him, I can't understand a fucking word of what he's saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
INCLUDING LATEST MAY 14 ORDER

 

JUDGE -SHE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER GGYC TO TRY AND "RUSH " USCG OR THE DOCUMENTATION CERT FOR VESSELS=CHR

 

AND SO MY POINT IS WITHOUT A DOC CERT VESSEL PER D OF G AND KNOWING ITS GOING IN FOREIGN WATERS- CHR /USCG AFFECTS AND

 

HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED ACCORDINGLY-- YOU THINK YOU CAN TAKE A BOAT TO FOREIGN WATERS AND JUST SHOW UP WITHOUT USCG DOCUMENTATION-?

 

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT ?

 

CHECK USCG AND LAW OF SEA TREATY, ETC

 

OR SHOW YOUR ARGUMENT WITH EVIDENCE ?

 

Jeez, you are really are one nasty aggressive little injun.

 

First, I have no need to provide any "evidence" as I'm not proposing any "argument". I was just pointing out that you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not going to check any law of sea treaties as they are simply irrelevant.

 

Second, neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the judge has ordered BOR to rush to get any particular documentation. The deed says CHR ASAP, the judge reiterated this, as a condition of the validity of the challenge (which has nothing to do with the legality of sailing a boat in the waters off Valencia). That's all.

 

Third, it's pretty obvious that anyone who imports a boat, either in pieces or afloat, into the EU has to comply with certain customs and import regulations. This applies to the Swiss as well as the USAmericans. No big conspiracy there. Same the world over. The US court hasn't been asked to overrule this and hasn't purported to do so.

The only things that matter now are what the judge ruled (which seems clear enough) and whether or not the parties are mentally ready to face off on the water. Both sides face a real human dilemma. It's just magnified out of all proportion by their immense wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only things that matter now are what the judge ruled (which seems clear enough) and whether or not the parties are mentally ready to face off on the water. Both sides face a real human dilemma. It's just magnified out of all proportion by their immense wealth.

 

This probably one of the more thought provoking posts I have read lately. As it stands now, both SNG and GGYC (ie EB and LE) are players at a game that has been going on for over two years.

 

That game will end in Feburaury for one of them. There is no CSS. No "we gave it a good run and look how far we got". No second chance or "we are still alive. No bragging rights for making a deep run into the playoffs.

 

This is going to be a run and done event. Loser carries the burden of being the first DoG loser (Comma of Pt Loma, doesn't count)

 

The mental gymnastics of having all your eggs in one basket and the uncertainty of what is about to happen, is propelling these two to do things they might otherwise not.

 

Interesting

 

WL

Link to post
Share on other sites
The order + the Deed + BO's own words lock him into Valencia. It doesn't matter that BO kept saying NH

 

No matter what BO says, can anyone explain to me how SNG can host the AC in the Northern Hemisphere (Valencia or elsewhere), in February, *without* mutual consent and *without* violating the four-corners language of the Deed?

 

I think that, alone, guarantees the venue question will end up back in court.

 

Sure, they can have it in Valencia in Feb if they reach mutual consent, but, c'mon, that's not gonna happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The order + the Deed + BO's own words lock him into Valencia. It doesn't matter that BO kept saying NH

 

No matter what BO says, can anyone explain to me how SNG can host the AC in the Northern Hemisphere (Valencia or elsewhere), in February, *without* mutual consent and *without* violating the four-corners language of the Deed?

 

I think that, alone, guarantees the venue question will end up back in court.

 

Sure, they can have it in Valencia in Feb if they reach mutual consent, but, c'mon, that's not gonna happen.

 

Wait, I think you have that backwards, it is Valencia first, MC or not, or some other venue chosen by SNG.

 

Of course, if they come to MC, then it could be just about anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The order + the Deed + BO's own words lock him into Valencia. It doesn't matter that BO kept saying NH

 

No matter what BO says, can anyone explain to me how SNG can host the AC in the Northern Hemisphere (Valencia or elsewhere), in February, *without* mutual consent and *without* violating the four-corners language of the Deed?

 

I think that, alone, guarantees the venue question will end up back in court.

 

Sure, they can have it in Valencia in Feb if they reach mutual consent, but, c'mon, that's not gonna happen.

 

Already happened.

 

The reason the court order allowed for Valencia regardless the date/hemisphere is because both parties agreed Valencia to the court, in papers filed early in the proceedings. Cahn ordered that to mean there is mutual consent on Valencia.

 

GGYC's position is that if it is anywhere else in Feb then it needs to be by MC elsewhere in the north; or else anywhere in the south, to be both Deed and Order compliant.

 

Corey F. wrote at SButt (bold mine)

 

The bottom line is that, barring mutual consent (yea right), the Match will be held in early February 2010, as provided in the Judgment, in Valencia or some other presumably deed compliant venue if SNG so desires.

 

 

And if they depart from Valencia then besides being southern, they also have to be, of course,

 

.. on ocean courses, free from headlands, .. These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water

 

Unless, as you say, there is MC to do otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, I think you have that backwards, it is Valencia first, MC or not, or some other venue chosen by SNG.

 

That's where the problem is, not the solution.

 

The plain language of the deed of gift says:

 

no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November 1st and May 1st if the races are to conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May 1st and November 1st if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Given that Valencia is in the Northern Hemisphere last I checked, how can they have it in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent and without conflicting with the Deed.

 

Bear in mind that without mutual consent, the match *has* to comply with the exact terms of the Deed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, I think you have that backwards, it is Valencia first, MC or not, or some other venue chosen by SNG.

 

That's where the problem is, not the solution.

 

The plain language of the deed of gift says:

 

no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November 1st and May 1st if the races are to conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May 1st and November 1st if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Given that Valencia is in the Northern Hemisphere last I checked, how can they have it in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent and without conflicting with the Deed.

 

Bear in mind that without mutual consent, the match *has* to comply with the exact terms of the Deed.

Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG. The court has the power to overrule the Deed and in this case it did, as a result of the timing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, I think you have that backwards, it is Valencia first, MC or not, or some other venue chosen by SNG.

 

That's where the problem is, not the solution.

 

The plain language of the deed of gift says:

 

no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November 1st and May 1st if the races are to conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May 1st and November 1st if the races are to be conducted in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

Given that Valencia is in the Northern Hemisphere last I checked, how can they have it in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent and without conflicting with the Deed.

 

Bear in mind that without mutual consent, the match *has* to comply with the exact terms of the Deed.

Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG. The court has the power to overrule the Deed and in this case it did, as a result of the timing.

COURT ORDERS CHANGING D OF G --

 

 

THE WATERLINE LENGTH AND "OWN BOTTOM" AMENDMENT

 

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATION OF GIFT DATED DECEMBER 17, 1956

 

NEW YORK YACHT CLUB, having filed a verified petition dated September 21, 1956, praying that an order be made pursuant to Section 12 of the Personal Property Law or otherwise, directing that the gift by George L. Schuyler of the America’s Cup which was won by the yacht AMERICA at Cowes, England on August 22, 1851, in trust under a Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887, shall be administered as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast and thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet and without regard to and free from the direction contained therein that yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup shall sail on their own bottoms to the port where the contest is to take place, and that such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper be granted to petitioner; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court from said petition and the papers annexed thereto that circumstances have so changed since the execution of said Deed of Gift, in a manner not known to the said donor and not anticipated by him, as to render impractical a literal compliance with the aforesaid terms of said Deed of Gift; and it further appearing that the grantor of said Deed of Gift has died and that the Attorney General of the Sate of New York is the only person interested in this proceeding; and said Attorney General having appeared and certified that he has no objections to the entry of an order as prayed for by petitioner,

 

NOW, upon motion of Carter, Ledyard and Milburn, attorneys for petitioner, it is

 

ORDERED that New York Yacht Club, as trustee of the America’s Cup given under the Deed of Gift dated October 24, 1887 made by George L. Schuyler, hereby is directed to administer the said Gift as if said Deed of Gift included no provision requiring yachts or vessels competing for the America’s Cup to sail, on their own bottoms, to the port where the contest is to take place, and as if the minimum load water-line length of the competing yachts or vessels of one mast was thereby required to be forty-four (44) feet.

Enter,

Hon. Edgar J. Nathan, Jr. J.S.C.

Justice

 

THE ARM OF THE SEA INTERPRETATION

 

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1984

 

An application having been made by the petitioner The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated for an order interpreting certain provisions of a Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup dated October 24, 1887 between George L. Schuyler and The New York Yacht Club, as amended by order of the Court dated December 17, 1956 (index No. 12696/56);

 

NOW, upon reading and filing the order to show cause dated August 8, 1984 (Alfred M. Ascione, Jr., J.) with proof of due and timely service of the Attorney General of the State of New York, the petition of the Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia incorporated, verified the 30th day of July 1984, and annexed exhibits, and the affidavit of Eugene M. Kinney, sworn to the 20th day of July, 1984 and exhibits thereof, all in support of the petition, and the notice of appearance and consent of Attorney General of the State of New York, acknowledged the 13th day of August, 1984, consenting to the petition;

 

AND, a memorandum decision and order dated September 4, 1984, having been rendered granting the petition;

 

NOW, upon the motion of DeForest & Duer, attorneys for the petitioner The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated, it is

 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the petition of The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated is granted with the consent of the Attorney General of the State of New York, representative of the public interest in the Deed of Gift, to the extent of declaring that the Deed of Gift entitles the Chicago Yacht Club, a yacht club of a foreign (i.e. competing) country as contemplated in the Deed of Gift, to enroll and compete as a contestant for the "America’s Cup."

 

 

 

THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE AMENDMENT

 

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DATED APRIL 5, 1985

 

An application having been made by petitioner The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporation for an order amending a certain provision of a Deed of Gift of the America’s Cup dated October 24, 1887 between George l. Schuyler and The New York Yacht Club, as amended by the Court dated December 17, 1956 (Index No. 12696/56);

 

NOW, upon reading and filing the order to show cause dated February 27, 1985 (Stanley Parness, J.) with proof of due and timely service on the Attorney General of the State of New York and The New York Yacht Club, the petition of The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated, verified the 27th day of November, 1984, and annexed exhibits, and the affidavit of Charles E. Kirsch, sworn to the 26th day of February, 1985, and annexed exhibits, all in support of the petition, and the notice of appearance and consent of the Attorney General of the State of New York, acknowledged the 7th day of March, 1985, consenting to the petition; and there being no opposition;

 

AND, a memorandum order dated March 11, 1985 having been rendered granting the petition on default;

 

NOW, upon the motion of DeForest & Duer, attorneys of petition The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated, it is

 

ORDERED, that the petition of The Royal Perth Yacht Club of Western Australia Incorporated is granted; and it is further

 

ORDERED, that the Deed of Gift is amended, and the trust established pursuant to the Deed of Gift shall hereafter be administered, as if, following the phrase "No race shall be sailed in the days intervening between November 1st and May 1st", there were added the following language: "if the races are to be conducted in the Northern Hemisphere; and no race shall be sailed in the days intervening between May 1st and November 1st in the Southern Hemisphere."

Enter,

Hon. Elliot Wilk J.S.C.

Justice

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Pretty sure the lawyers told JC that during one of their sessions, and he incorporated it into his order...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Yes, I see your dilemma and we hashed this out already in other threads. Bottom line, the court has the power to administer the Deed. And so even though I could probably find what the parties submitted about Valencia after Cahn wrote "settle order" on Nov 27th '07, Cahn did not even need those submittals to make that decision; it's just goodness that he did base it on that fact of them having done so.

 

Again, to be both order compliant ~and~ Deed compliant, in the absence of MC then SNG needs to select either Valencia or a SH venue.

 

Now that "VLC or SH, or MC" is GGYC's position; and a reading of the Justice K transcript suggests it; and Friedman appears to agree it too; and RC, apparently on L&W's advice, has said so too; but Ostrager kept on about 'NH' instead, although he never did get Justice K to respond to that part of his pleadings. Mostly, he was just trying to avoid the Contempt charge by insisting they would obey February, that May was just a suggestion during negotiations (ha!) and - in making that excuse and promise - he tried to slip in the NH option but never explicitly got that into what Justice K ordered at the end. And so that is why I also believe that Valencia/NH/winter is the only exception to the Deed that SNG has been allowed/offered by the court's order. And it was allowed only because GGYC and SNG both wrote Valencia in their original proposed settlement submissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cite?

 

I'd humbly suggest that if it isn't in the court record, agreement didn't happen.

 

And, if agreement didn't happen, Feb in Valencia is going to put them back in court.

 

Might well be a card GGYC is "holding onto", in case SNG gets pissy about measurements or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cite?

 

I'd humbly suggest that if it isn't in the court record, agreement didn't happen.

And, if agreement didn't happen, Feb in Valencia is going to put them back in court.

 

Might well be a card GGYC is "holding onto", in case SNG gets pissy about measurements or something.

It was smart of you to put the 'if' in that sentence, because the agreement ~did~ happen.

 

The reason I am hesitating pointing to it for you is partly because either the GGYC or the SNG one was hard to find last time I did it; but mostly because it simply doesn't matter. The court ~does~ have the power to include that in the order, regardless of it being "in the official record" or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Pretty sure the lawyers told JC that during one of their sessions, and he incorporated it into his order...

Excuse me for interrupting but this is all a load of unadulterated bollocks. What you have is two parties driven apart to the extreme by their lawyers. They are now miles apart from each other on a human level but they now know that they must race or lose face because the legal action has been so vituperative. Only one side can walk away victorious. The other will go down as the biggest loser in the history of the AC. Neither party is used to failure. In any other situation they can spend their way out of a corner. Now they can't. The judge has ruled. The chips are down and the abyss beckons for one of them. Maybe the flick of a coin, maybe a freak gust of wind, maybe inferior design will tip the balance: who knows? But at last these two billionaires have to face the truth and face off. It's a very extraordinary self imposed human drama. Nothing more, nothing less and so far as they are concerned it no longer has anything to do with location. Only one thing matters. Winning at any cost. Just try to imagine how it would be if you had all the money in the world and found yourself in their shoes? Not comfortable, I suspect. All the money in the world but only one chance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Pretty sure the lawyers told JC that during one of their sessions, and he incorporated it into his order...

Excuse me for interrupting but this is all a load of unadulterated bollocks. What you have is two parties driven apart to the extreme by their lawyers. They are now miles apart from each other on a human level but they now know that they must race or lose face because the legal action has been so vituperative. Only one side can walk away victorious. The other will go down as the biggest loser in the history of the AC. Neither party is used to failure. In any other situation they can spend their way out of a corner. Now they can't. The judge has ruled. The chips are down and the abyss beckons for one of them. Maybe the flick of a coin, maybe a freak gust of wind, maybe inferior design will tip the balance: who knows? But at last these two billionaires have to face the truth and face off. It's a very extraordinary self imposed human drama. Nothing more, nothing less and so far as they are concerned it no longer has anything to do with location. Only one thing matters. Winning at any cost. Just try to imagine how it would be if you had all the money in the world and found yourself in their shoes? Not comfortable, I suspect. All the money in the world but only one chance?

And that is exactly why, apparently, they do this at all! Well said. I'm not sure EB wanted it to go this far but he has certainly not stepped back from the Challenge and folded his cards.

 

The story is incredible in many ways, but it is very cool too that there's unprecedented sailboats at the center of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Pretty sure the lawyers told JC that during one of their sessions, and he incorporated it into his order...

Excuse me for interrupting but this is all a load of unadulterated bollocks. What you have is two parties driven apart to the extreme by their lawyers. They are now miles apart from each other on a human level but they now know that they must race or lose face because the legal action has been so vituperative. Only one side can walk away victorious. The other will go down as the biggest loser in the history of the AC. Neither party is used to failure. In any other situation they can spend their way out of a corner. Now they can't. The judge has ruled. The chips are down and the abyss beckons for one of them. Maybe the flick of a coin, maybe a freak gust of wind, maybe inferior design will tip the balance: who knows? But at last these two billionaires have to face the truth and face off. It's a very extraordinary self imposed human drama. Nothing more, nothing less and so far as they are concerned it no longer has anything to do with location. Only one thing matters. Winning at any cost. Just try to imagine how it would be if you had all the money in the world and found yourself in their shoes? Not comfortable, I suspect. All the money in the world but only one chance?

And that is exactly why, apparently, they do this at all! Well said.

 

Incredible in many ways, but very cool too that there's a sailboat race at the center of it all.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

Pretty sure the lawyers told JC that during one of their sessions, and he incorporated it into his order...

Excuse me for interrupting but this is all a load of unadulterated bollocks. What you have is two parties driven apart to the extreme by their lawyers. They are now miles apart from each other on a human level but they now know that they must race or lose face because the legal action has been so vituperative. Only one side can walk away victorious. The other will go down as the biggest loser in the history of the AC. Neither party is used to failure. In any other situation they can spend their way out of a corner. Now they can't. The judge has ruled. The chips are down and the abyss beckons for one of them. Maybe the flick of a coin, maybe a freak gust of wind, maybe inferior design will tip the balance: who knows? But at last these two billionaires have to face the truth and face off. It's a very extraordinary self imposed human drama. Nothing more, nothing less and so far as they are concerned it no longer has anything to do with location. Only one thing matters. Winning at any cost. Just try to imagine how it would be if you had all the money in the world and found yourself in their shoes? Not comfortable, I suspect. All the money in the world but only one chance?

And that is exactly why, apparently, they do this at all! Well said. I'm not sure EB wanted it to go this far but he has certainly not stepped back from the Challenge and folded his cards.

 

The story is incredible in many ways, but it is very cool too that there's unprecedented sailboats at the center of it all.

 

......and now part of 152 years of the America's Cup history as that's The Cup :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cite?

 

I'd humbly suggest that if it isn't in the court record, agreement didn't happen.

 

And, if agreement didn't happen, Feb in Valencia is going to put them back in court.

 

Might well be a card GGYC is "holding onto", in case SNG gets pissy about measurements or something.

 

 

 

READ THESE AT PG 6 OF 8 AND 19 OF 19

 

http://www.ggyc.com/20080512_DecisionAndOr...09756_1_NY).PDF

 

http://www.ggyc.com/071127_CourtDecision.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have done.

 

I totally get that Cahn's order says "valencia or somewhere else".

 

What I don't get is.... well, let me put it this way: Let's say SNG puts a race course off Valencia in February, and GGYC doesn't show. Instead, files a motion with the court to invalidate SNG's "regatta", as it conflicts with the Deed of Gift. Claims "breach of fiduciary", pointing to the fact that the Trustee has clearly contravened the plain language of the Deed.

 

Some judge gets assigned the case, pulls out the Deed and says "hmmm, yeah, it says right there, you can't hold a regatta in the Northern Hemisphere in February, and there's nothing in the court record that voids or waives that requirement."

 

What's SNG going to point to? The fact that the word "Valencia" appears in Cahn's order?

 

Feh.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I've been in my share of protest hearings and I'd have a field-day with that.

 

In *my* opinion, not that it matters for shit, Cahn canNOT write an order that conflicts with the Deed. Cahn could, in theory, *amend* the Deed to allow Valencia or any other NH venue in February, but did not.

 

So, the only way to read the order that makes any sense to me is "you have to have it in February, 10 months from the date of service. SNG, you can pick Valencia, or you can pick some other spot. However, the Deed still binds, so if you want Valencia or any other NH venue in February you better find a way to get mutual consent. Work it out."

 

Any other interpretation puts a foot down a really slippery slope. For example, what if SNG decides to put it in Dubai? Under Cahn's order, it is "any other location". But it's NH. Could SNG argue that they can have it in Dubai, despite the plain language of the Deed, simply because Cahn said "any other location we choose". I think not.

 

I think the four corners of the Deed carry more weight than the word Valencia in an order. Just my two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a stab at helping sledracr out with his Cite? demands..

 

From I-forget-what-page in this SNG doc:

 

post-17804-1242765008_thumb.jpg

 

The (think it was..) relevant docs to the point made above, dated December 12/13, 2007

 

SNG

SettleOrderSNG.pdf

 

GGYC

SettleOrderGGYC2.pdf

 

STRING-REY--BRO

 

I ALREADY POSTED SETTLE ORDER [ABOVE] WHICH IS THE ONE FROM AS IN COURT ORDER-SETTLE ORDER-

 

THERE IS NO RECORD OR SIGNED COURT ENTERED -FINAL SETTLEMENT -

 

AND SINCE LAST HEARING WAS ABOUT CONTEMPT AND ALLEDGED TENT WATCHING--

 

SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER FINALIZED INSTRUMENTS ARE ALL COURTS AT THIS POINT-

 

THE FUNNY PART YOU FOLKS ARE MISSING IS THE GGYC AND SNG ARE PARTIES-OK

 

THE BOATS AND THEIR OWNERS ARE NOT PARTIES AND SO HOW CAN A JUDGE ORDER A PARTY THAT DOSENT HAVE A BOAT TO COMPLY TO CHR-

 

CHR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GGYC --THEY ARENT THE VESSEL OWNER -EXCEPT LE MISTAKE BEING ON GGYC BOARD --ALSO-

 

THE BRILLANCE POSTING IN THIS FORUM HERE IS RUNNING OVER LEGAL STANDARDS AND BASIC LAW--AS I POSTED -NUMEROUS TIMES W/ EXHIBITS ETC

 

USCG DOC CERT VESSEL IS THE ONE RACING -THE VESSEL IS THE D OF G ENTITY --THATS WHY ITS DOCUMENTED-W CHR -AND A PARTY AT THAT POINT TO AC -

 

LOL ITS SO -BASIC --AC-ADEMIC----SLOW DOWN AND THINK ABOUT --OR NOT DONT CARE--

 

JUST FUNNY WATCHING ALL THE VERBAGE

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a stab at helping sledracr out with his Cite?

 

Thanks!

 

The SNG doc actually doesn't resolve the issue, for two reasons:

 

-- One, it is SNG's submission, not an order of the court, and I don't think the court can pick-and-choose parts of litigants' submissions and bring them by inference into an order. I think the order, itself, has four corners, so if the parties have agreed on Valencia, it sorta needs to say it in the text of the order. Doesn't it? I mean, this would be a non-issue if the Order said "both GGYC and SNG have provided sworn affidavits in which they mutually agree to Valencia on the specified dates." But the order doesn't say anything of the kind.

 

-- Two, in their proposed order, SNG themselves argue exactly what I'm saying - that they want to have the match in Valencia, but they can't because the dates of GGYC's challenge run afoul of the Deed, and they're pissy about the fact that infringes on their right as defender to pick the venue. From that same document:

 

SNG's proposed date of July 2009 date was not randomly chosen . To the contrary, that date duly recognizes the Deed of Gift's express prohibition against any race being

held in the Northern Hemisphere between November I" and May I ". In light of this strict prohibition, it is impossible to hold a match in Valencia until May 2009 .

 

Has something now *explicitly* changed which makes it possible for them to hold a match in Valencia during the period in which the Deed prohibits a race in the NH?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking a stab at helping sledracr out with his Cite?

 

Thanks!

 

The SNG doc actually doesn't resolve the issue, for two reasons:

 

-- One, it is SNG's submission, not an order of the court, and I don't think the court can pick-and-choose parts of litigants' submissions and bring them by inference into an order. I think the order, itself, has four corners, so if the parties have agreed on Valencia, it sorta needs to say it in the text of the order. Doesn't it?

 

-- Two, in that doc, SNG themselves argue that they want to have the match in Valencia, but they can't because the dates of GGYC's challenge run afoul of the Deed, and they're pissy about the fact that infringes on their right as defender to pick the venue. From that same document:

 

SNG's proposed date of July 2009 date was not randomly chosen . To the contrary, that date duly recognizes the Deed of Gift's express prohibition against any race being

held in the Northern Hemisphere between November I" and May I ". In light of this strict prohibition, it is impossible to hold a match in Valencia until May 2009 .

 

Has something now *explicitly* changed which makes it possible to hold a match in Valencia during the period in which the Deed prohibitd a race in the NH?

No, I don't think anything has explicitly changed wrt this, except for Justice K reaffirming the order as-is at the hearing.

 

During all the time between July '07 and now, a LOT of arguments have been made.. Including, as you say, that if it were to be in Valencia (as SNG argued was their plan as of December '07 above) then the dates should be ordered so as to be Deed compliant. But the venue vehicle was used by both parties at different times during the history of the case, as arguments for sooner dates (in the case of GGYC) or later (SNG). Cahn tried to solve all that best he could, and the CofA agreed to let his decision stand. Therefore, Valencia is a choice no matter the date of the Match.

 

GGYC, as I pointed out above, believes anywhere else needs to be both order-compliant AND Deed-compliant. Meaning Feb, and in either VLC or SH.

 

There is a good chance SNG will try to get back into court with it, if they have any mechanism available to them for doing so. I do not think they will announce, say, Dubai on August 8 without taking a big risk of being charged with and found in Contempt. Otoh, VLC may well be their best option anyway and so we will all be spared that further hell..

Link to post
Share on other sites

And add to this:

  • Grant Daltons comments at the Daily Sail that the order only allows racing in the Northern Hemisphere in Valencia in February, not anywhere in the world as Alinghi argues.
  • Alinghi specifically sought indemnity if they race in the Northern Hemisphere in their last court hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up in court again in August. For example, Alinghi say they want to race in Dubai (after all, they've already announced that they're training there over the winter), and BMWO object, and say that it's got to be Valencia.

 

What happens if one team breaks a boat? "Oh, we can't race in February, it has to be in May..."

 

Or could SNG refuse to hand the trophy over, as it's not a deed legal match. :)

 

That said, there's always the outside possibility that SNG and GGYC will actually agree to something. It might even be in GGYC's interests to show some flexibility on the date (to ensure that the Match is Deed compliant), especially if Alinghi don't look pressed for time. In fact, it would give them a fantastic piece of PR. ("BMWO give up their advantage in order to conform to the Deed.")

Link to post
Share on other sites
And add to this:

  • Grant Daltons comments at the Daily Sail that the order only allows racing in the Northern Hemisphere in Valencia in February, not anywhere in the world as Alinghi argues.
  • Alinghi specifically sought indemnity if they race in the Northern Hemisphere in their last court hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up in court again in August. For example, Alinghi say they want to race in Dubai (after all, they've already announced that they're training there over the winter), and BMWO object, and say that it's got to be Valencia.

 

What happens if one team breaks a boat? "Oh, we can't race in February, it has to be in May..."

 

Or could SNG refuse to hand the trophy over, as it's not a deed legal match. :)

That said, there's always the outside possibility that SNG and GGYC will actually agree to something. It might even be in GGYC's interests to show some flexibility on the date (to ensure that the Match is Deed compliant), especially if Alinghi don't look pressed for time. In fact, it would give them a fantastic piece of PR. ("BMWO give up their advantage in order to conform to the Deed.")

 

Lol, I gave up on that loooong ago. There is almost zero chance of MC on the venue, in my estimation. Here is RC on the subject at VS. Does it sound like he has any problem with Valencia?

 

Valencia Sailing: The 33rd America’s Cup is now definitely scheduled to take place next February and Alinghi will choose a venue. Do you think it could be Valencia?

 

Russell Coutts: Well, if they want to race in the northern hemisphere, it has to be Valencia. I think it’s a good option for Alinghi and us. It would certainly be a cost-effective solution. Valencia is a good place to sail.

 

Valencia Sailing: The weather in Valencia in February is completely unstable and there is no clear pattern. Does this put you in a disadvantage, if of course Alinghi picks Valencia?

 

Russell Coutts: You can optimize your yacht for different conditions, depending on the size of sails you put or what size of mast you configure the boat with and so forth. There are options you have in order to improve your performance in different conditions, if you have strong winds or light winds. After all, that’s part of sailing. Look at this regatta. One day we have 2 knots and the next one 18.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Valencia Buoy, February:

32% > Beaufort 4

Average wind speed 9 kts

 

Dubai February:

30% > Beaufort 4

Average wind speed 9 kts

 

Windfinder.com

 

A related article at SButt:

 

Chris Bedford: Valencia wind conditions in February

 

And here is something else interesting: winds in Dubai in February (& anyone who clicks this should stay there for a while and play around).

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOW CAN A JUDGE ORDER A PARTY THAT DOSENT HAVE A BOAT TO COMPLY TO CHR-

 

CHR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GGYC --THEY ARENT THE VESSEL OWNER

 

GGYC has submitted a challenge under the Deed. The Deed requires the challenger to provide the CHR and the court with jurisdiction over the Deed (NY) could, at an appropriate time, order the challenger to provide it. Whether or not GGYC owns the boat is irrelevant. I can understand the oh-so-clever-clever little distinction that you are trying to draw but it is pointless and insignificant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOW CAN A JUDGE ORDER A PARTY THAT DOSENT HAVE A BOAT TO COMPLY TO CHR-

 

CHR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GGYC --THEY ARENT THE VESSEL OWNER

 

GGYC has submitted a challenge under the Deed. The Deed requires the challenger to provide the CHR and the court with jurisdiction over the Deed (NY) could, at an appropriate time, order the challenger to provide it. Whether or not GGYC owns the boat is irrelevant. I can understand the oh-so-clever-clever little distinction that you are trying to draw but it is pointless and insignificant.

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY -- MAYBE TO YOU-

 

Whether or not GGYC owns the boat is irrelevant. ITS RELEVANT--SINCE THEY [GGYC] HAS NO CONTROL OVER CHR AND WHEN ITS BEING ADMINISTERED-

 

AND THEY ARENT ON THE CHR--THEY ARE JUST A MIDDLE MAN FOR THE CHALLENGE- GGYC DOSENT HAVE A BOAT FOR THE CHALLENGE

 

ITS NOT THEIRS-

 

I can understand the oh-so-clever-clever little distinction that you are trying to draw but it is pointless and insignificant.

 

DONT AGREE WITH YOU -

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not GGYC owns the boat is irrelevant. ITS RELEVANT--SINCE THEY [GGYC] HAS NO CONTROL OVER CHR AND WHEN ITS BEING ADMINISTERED-

GGYC should have thought about that before they chose to challenge in a 90x90 yacht called USA. A prudent club, knowing the minimal formalities required by the Deed, would have made approriate arrangements in advance with the member/owner/syndicate that was planning to build the boat to ensure that the club could comply.

 

If SNG goes back to court to demand production of the certificate, GGYC won't get very far by replying "we cannot provide it because we, GGYC, do not own the boat". They have far better arguments to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you seem to be getting yourself all tied up in knots over nothing. The venue issue is simple. The court has made an order and as they are administering the trust, that is that unless one of the parties appeals. A court order overides the trust. Period. The order is written the way it is as an equitable solution. I got beaten up pretty badly until I saw this point.

 

What I don't get is.... well, let me put it this way: Let's say SNG puts a race course off Valencia in February, and GGYC doesn't show. Instead, files a motion with the court to invalidate SNG's "regatta", as it conflicts with the Deed of Gift. Claims "breach of fiduciary", pointing to the fact that the Trustee has clearly contravened the plain language of the Deed.
If GGYC tried that, they would be in deep shit because they were ignoring a court order. Valencia in February is a court order, not something that SNG has decided. And the court is the ultimate arbitor on this. IF GGYC is unhappy with Valencia in February, then they should have appeale that by now.

 

The matter of alternate venues is also, IMO, pretty clear. The order by Cahn states

 

"Valencia or ANY OTHER LOCATION selected by SNG" (subject to 6 months notice)

 

In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction. The latest ruling doesn't contradict that and considering how much BO laboured the point about SNG being committed to the Northern Hemisphere, I think the judge might have said something if SNG's choices were limited to only Valencia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction.

Are you suggesting that the court order allowing "any other venue selected by SNG" overrides the requirement for the course to be "Deed-legal", ie ocean course, free of headlands, min depth? If so, SNG could select Lake Geneva. If the court order doesn't override that bit of the deed, why should it override the hemispere restriction?

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction.

Are you suggesting that the court order allowing "any other venue selected by SNG" overrides the requirement for the course to be "Deed-legal", ie ocean course, free of headlands, min depth? If so, SNG could select Lake Geneva. If the court order doesn't override that bit of the deed, why should it override the hemispere restriction?

That is an excellent argument. SNG needs to select a Deed-compliant venue unless that venue is Valencia, to my reading of it too. The OR is also indicative. "Valencia OR any other venue selected by SNG"

 

But I do think SNG will try avoid that, since BO has telegraphed it already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New piece out today:

 

--

Alinghi studying various venues for America's Cup

2 hours ago

 

MADRID (AFP) — America's Cup defender Alinghi says it is studying "various venues" for the next edition of yachting's premier event, a multihull duel against US rival Oracle.

 

...

 

"We are currently studying various venues that are likely to host the 33rd America's Cup, but we don't have the obligation to reveal it to GGYC up to six months before the competition, that is early August at the earliest," Alinghi said in the letter, dated Monday.

 

But the Swiss team said it is not obliged to hold the event in the southern hemisphere under the rules, something contested by Oracle.

 

--

Link to post
Share on other sites

semi-related,

--

 

F1 » Valencia GP to be caught up in corruption case?

 

The European Grand Prix could be facing an uncertain future as one of its principal supporters faces a court hearing on allegations of corruption that could include the development of the Valencia harbourside venue.

 

Regional president Francisco Camps - who played a key role in convincing Bernie Ecclestone to switch the European GP from Germany to Spain in response to the growing popularity of F1 in the wake of Fernando Alonso's back-to-back world titles - is due in court today [Wednesday] to face charges of accepting 'bribes and backhanders' in exchange for awarding key 'contracts and illegal building permits'. It is thought that these contracts could include some of those involved in the construction of both the 'street circuit' used for the Valencia-based grand prix, and the America's Cup port development in which it is situated.

 

(contd)

--

 

We've mused over this before; what is new is that it is getting a court hearing today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction.

Are you suggesting that the court order allowing "any other venue selected by SNG" overrides the requirement for the course to be "Deed-legal", ie ocean course, free of headlands, min depth? If so, SNG could select Lake Geneva. If the court order doesn't override that bit of the deed, why should it override the hemispere restriction?

That is an excellent argument. SNG needs to select a Deed-compliant venue unless that venue is Valencia, to my reading of it too. The OR is also indicative. "Valencia OR any other venue selected by SNG"

 

But I do think SNG will try avoid that, since BO has telegraphed it already.

 

I'd rather thought it was an argument to say that SNG does NOT need to select a Deed-compliant venue, if what the courts say overrules the deed, and if the court said "any other venue" without saying that it must be a deed-venue ... you might conclude that even the little pond on the back of my garden would be o.k. , how you turn that around is a mystery to me, how do you come to that ? (don't say that you found the sockwarrior's peyote stash ? naughty man ! ;) )

let's hope this "any other venue" does not turn into another case of "having", I'd like to see some sailing action instead of court nonsense :rolleyes:

 

 

apart from that ... the German translation is a rather Pythonesque read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction.

Are you suggesting that the court order allowing "any other venue selected by SNG" overrides the requirement for the course to be "Deed-legal", ie ocean course, free of headlands, min depth? If so, SNG could select Lake Geneva. If the court order doesn't override that bit of the deed, why should it override the hemispere restriction?

That is an excellent argument. SNG needs to select a Deed-compliant venue unless that venue is Valencia, to my reading of it too. The OR is also indicative. "Valencia OR any other venue selected by SNG"

 

But I do think SNG will try avoid that, since BO has telegraphed it already.

 

I'd rather thought it was an argument to say that SNG does NOT need to select a Deed-compliant venue, if what the courts say overrules the deed, and if the court said "any other venue" without saying that it must be a deed-venue ... you might conclude that even the little pond on the back of my garden would be o.k. , how you turn that around is a mystery to me, how do you come to that ? (don't say that you found the sockwarrior's peyote stash ? naughty man ! ;) )

let's hope this "any other venue" does not turn into another case of "having", I'd like to see some sailing action instead of court nonsense :rolleyes:

 

 

apart from that ... the German translation is a rather Pythonesque read.

Yes - The order could have been made more clear on the venue last Thursday, I agree.

 

I will agree with SimonN on the point that Kornreich is hoping a lot of this can be settled by using a mediator; otherwise she will end up having to learn about, and control, a lot more of the DoG Match than she probably wants to...

Link to post
Share on other sites
A court order overides the trust. Period.

 

Rubbish.

 

A court order can clarify the terms of the trust.

A court order can interpret the terms of the trust.

A court order can enforce the terms of the trust.

A court order canNOT override the language of the trust.

 

Period.

 

The court *can* make a ruling which amends the language of the Deed itself. But they have not done so, and until/unless they do the court is accountable to the four-corners of the document. In this case, the four-corners says "no racing in the NH in the winter, unless there is mutual consent."

 

Any case that ends up back in the court is going to look at those four corners to decide the venue/date issue. The fact is, there *are* a number of ways that SNG can Deed-legally get Valencia in Feb or anywhere else they want on any dates they want. They just have to do it through mutual consent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the same way as the order allows Valencia in winter modifies the DOG, so does that. SNG is free to choose any other venue without restriction.

Are you suggesting that the court order allowing "any other venue selected by SNG" overrides the requirement for the course to be "Deed-legal", ie ocean course, free of headlands, min depth? If so, SNG could select Lake Geneva. If the court order doesn't override that bit of the deed, why should it override the hemispere restriction?

That is an excellent argument. SNG needs to select a Deed-compliant venue unless that venue is Valencia, to my reading of it too. The OR is also indicative. "Valencia OR any other venue selected by SNG"

 

But I do think SNG will try avoid that, since BO has telegraphed it already.

 

I'd rather thought it was an argument to say that SNG does NOT need to select a Deed-compliant venue, if what the courts say overrules the deed, and if the court said "any other venue" without saying that it must be a deed-venue ... you might conclude that even the little pond on the back of my garden would be o.k. , how you turn that around is a mystery to me, how do you come to that ? (don't say that you found the sockwarrior's peyote stash ? naughty man ! ;) )

let's hope this "any other venue" does not turn into another case of "having", I'd like to see some sailing action instead of court nonsense :rolleyes:

 

 

apart from that ... the German translation is a rather Pythonesque read.

Yes - The order could have been made more clear on the venue last Thursday, I agree.

 

I will agree with SimonN on the point that Kornreich is hoping a lot of this can be settled by using a mediator; otherwise she will end up having to learn about, and control, a lot more of the DoG Match than she probably wants to...

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY AGAIN

 

VALENCIA IS NOT D OF G LEGAL -JUST BECAUSE A NY JUDGE SAID THEY COULD RACE IN VALENCIA-

 

JUDGE CAHN DIDNT SAY VALENCIA ,SPAIN SO SNG BETTER HOPE A D OF G COURSE IS AVAILABLE WITH VALENCIA -

 

SOMETHING AROUND THERE OR START A NEW VILLAGE -HELL THEY DID THAT IN CALI - VALENCIA , CA --A DEVELOPERS TOWN-CHOKED WITH FRAUD-

 

SO VALENCIA --WHERE WHICH ONE--?

 

 

ALSO D OF G RACE IN VALENCIA SPAIN WE ARE ASSUMING COURT AND SNG ARE REFERING TOO- ITS GOT LEGAL PROBLEMS

 

MAHGUAH_SCALPS_P...

May 18 2009, 10:57 PM

Post #90

 

 

Anarchist

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 770

Joined: 9-January 09

From: 33.98.n 118.45. w

Member No.: 34407

 

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY --GOT A QUESTION--

 

IF SNG HAS THE AC IN VALENCIA - LETS SAY-

 

SPAIN IS THE LEGAL VENUE? AND DOES SPAIN'S SEA [TERRITORIAL] CLAIMS ALLOW THE AC CIRCUIT TO BE RUN WITHIN ITS -S T ?

 

LAW OF THE SEA TREATY? 12 MILES- AND SEE BELOW-

 

The 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone provided that states cannot suspend the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits that are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign state. The 1982 treaty established a new right of transit passage for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit in straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another.

 

 

ALSO THERES THE DEPTH REQUIREMENTS IN THE D OF G-

 

""All such races shall be on ocean courses, free from headlands, as follows: The first race, twenty nautical miles to windward and return; the second race an equilateral triangular race of thirty-nine nautical miles, the first side of which shall be a beat to windward; the third race (if necessary) twenty nautical miles to windward and return;

 

and one week day shall intervene between the conclusion of one race and the starting of the next race. These ocean courses shall be practicable in all parts for vessels of twenty-two feet draught of water, and shall be selected by the Club holding the Cup; and these races shall be sailed subject to its rules and sailing regulations so far as the same do not conflict with the provisions of this deed of gift, but without any times allowances whatever.

 

The challenged Club shall not be required to name its representative vessel until at a time agreed upon for the start, but the vessel when named must compete in all the races, and each of such races must be completed within seven hours.""

 

 

OK BEFORE YOU START OVER RE--ACTING

 

JUST LAYOUT THE D OF G REQ'S RACE COURSE AND TELL ME OR SHOW ME?

 

HOW AC CAN BE DONE THERE? LEGALLY AND DONT FORGET THE VENUE IS MORE THAN YOU THINK-

 

SEE LEGAL DEFINE AND REMEMBER "VENUE " IS NOT A WORD OR TERM USED IN D OF G-ON THIS--

 

NOTE- WHATEVER HAPPENED BEFORE REALLY DOSENT MATTER-

Link to post
Share on other sites
His favorite project, the second defense of the America's Cup with Alinghi, has not much to do with sailing, but with a legal misunderstandings and cock-fighting millionaires.

 

I *love* this [translated] quote from the German article.

 

Pretty much sums up the whole history of the America's Cup <lol>

Link to post
Share on other sites
His favorite project, the second defense of the America's Cup with Alinghi, has not much to do with sailing, but with a legal misunderstandings and cock-fighting millionaires.

 

I *love* this [translated] quote from the German article.

 

Pretty much sums up the whole history of the America's Cup <lol>

Yeah, made my day. Still laughing :lol: .

Link to post
Share on other sites
His favorite project, the second defense of the America's Cup with Alinghi, has not much to do with sailing, but with a legal misunderstandings and cock-fighting millionaires.

 

I *love* this [translated] quote from the German article.

 

Pretty much sums up the whole history of the America's Cup <lol>

Yeah, made my day. Still laughing :lol: .

Wierd, the link changed, to here

 

Since it is so much fun ... and such a slow day ... and involves EB losing tons of money? ... Here's the German, followed by a Google-tran :)

 

Bertarelli lernt die Niederlagen kennen

Mehr zum Artikel

Bertarelli spendet seine UBS-Honorare

20.05.2009 17:45

 

Eine glückliche Hand hat Ernesto Bertarelli mit Santhera nicht: Vor dem Börsenabsturz des Biotech-Unternehmens hat der Milliardär seine Beteiligung um 5 Prozent erhöht. An Rückschläge hat sich der Strahlemann zuletzt gewöhnen müssen.

 

Von Peter Hody

 

Hat er falsch spekuliert oder wars bloss ein teurer Zufall? Ernesto Bertarelli hält seit dem vergangenen 14. Mai nicht mehr knapp 10 Prozent am Biotech-Unternehmen Santhera, sondern 15,5 Prozent. Am 15. Mai erhielt Santhera die schlechten Studienresultate zum Hoffnungsträger Idebenone. Am 20. Mai musste Santhera die Resultate veröffentlichen. Die Aktie stürzte ab. Das Unternehmen und Bertarellis Investment sind ein Drittel weniger wert. Ein millionenteurer Rückschlag.

 

 

 

Möglicherweise wollte Bertarelli seine Beteiligung im Hinblick auf die Veröffentlichung der Studie erhöhen. In den letzten Monaten hat er kontinuierlich Santhera-Aktien von der Investmentgesellschaft 3i abgekauft. Positive Resultate hätten der Santhera-Aktie Zunder gegeben und Bertarelli hätte sich für seine Cleverness gratulieren können.

 

 

 

Verwickelt in einen Milliardären-Hahnenkampf

 

 

 

Der Ärger wegen ein paar verlorenen Millionen passt ins Bild der letzten Monate: Dem Sonnyboy läufts als Privatier nicht mehr rund. Aus dem UBS-Verwaltungsrat ist er nolens volens zurückgetreten, um Leuten Platz zu machen, die mehr von Finanzen und Märkten verstehen. Sein Lieblingsprojekt, die zweite Verteidigung des America's Cup mit Alinghi, hat nicht mehr viel mit Segeln zu tun, sondern mit juristischem Hickhack und Milliardären-Hahnenkampf.

 

 

 

Larry Ellison, Besitzer des Herausforderer-Teams Oracle BMW, rang seinen Rivalen vor Gerichten nieder. Bertarelli muss nun im Februar 2010 zur Titelverteidiung antreten, in einem Mehrrumpfboot. Dieses muss er erst noch bauen, während Ellison seinen monströsen Trimaran bereits ausgiebig testet.

 

 

 

Dass Bertarelli die Material- und Geldschlacht im America's Cup eindämmen will, kommt nicht von ungefähr: Hauptsponsor UBS macht nicht mehr mit. Die knapp 50 Millionen Franken, welche die Bank bislang in Alinghi gesteckt hat, schmerzen auch einen Millardär, wenn sie plötzlich fehlen.

 

 

 

Wie erfolgreich Bertarelli als Investor, neben seinem Santhera-Engagement, sonst ist, lässt sich schwer feststellen. Das Diagnostik- und Dialyseunternehmen Euromedic, das er zusammen mit Partnern für 1,2 Milliarden Franken vor knapp einem Jahr übernommen hat, scheint sich gut zu entwickeln.

 

 

 

Wenigstens kein Madoff-Debakel

 

 

 

Geld verloren hat er aber mit seiner Familien-Investmentgesellschaft Kedge Capital. Das räumte er vergangenes Jahr in einem Interview ein. Immerhin hat Bertarelli, nicht wie andere Superreiche, eine Havarie vermieden: In die Fonds von Bernie Madoff hat er nicht investiert. Man habe sich die Madoff-Fonds zwar angeschaut, aber doch die Finger davon gelassen, sagte der Kedge-Manager François-Serge Lhabitant im Januar.

 

 

--------------

 

Bertarelli learns the defeats know

More Articles

Bertarelli donates his honorariums UBS

20.05.2009 17:45

 

A lucky hand with Ernesto Bertarelli Santhera not: Before the stock market crash of the biotech company, the billionaire's participation by 5 percent. To setbacks, the last Strahlemann used to.

 

By Peter Hody

 

Where he's wrong to speculate, or just a coincidence expensive? Ernesto Bertarelli holds since the last 14th May not be less than 10 percent of the biotech company Santhera, but 15.5 percent. On 15 May Santhera received the bad results to the study hope Idebenone. On 20 May Santhera had the results published. The stock crashed. The Company and Investment are Bertarellis third less valuable. A millionenteurer setback.

 

 

 

Perhaps Bertarelli wanted his involvement in relation to the publication of the study increase. In recent months he has continually Santhera shares of the investment company 3i bought. Positive results have been the tinder Santhera share and Bertarelli would have to congratulate his cleverness.

 

 

 

Implicated in a cock-fight millionaires

 

 

 

The anger of a few million lost fits into the picture in recent months: The Sonnyboy läufts as a private person is no longer around. From the UBS Board volens nolens He is resigned to place people to make more of the finances and understand markets. His favorite project, the second defense of the America's Cup with Alinghi, has not much to do with sailing, but with a legal misunderstandings and cock-fighting millionaires.

 

 

 

Larry Ellison, owner of the challenger BMW Oracle team, rang his rivals before the courts settled. Bertarelli has now in February 2010 to Titelverteidiung other, in a multi-hull boat. This he has yet to build, while Ellison's trimaran monstrous already extensively tested.

 

 

 

Bertarelli that the material and money in the battle to stem America's Cup will not come by chance: the main sponsor UBS makes no longer work with. The almost 50 million francs, which the bank so far has put in Alinghi, Millardär also a pain when they are suddenly absent.

 

 

 

How successful Bertarelli as an investor, in addition to his involvement Santhera, otherwise, it is difficult to ascertain. The diagnostic and dialysis company Eurogold Medic, which he, together with partners for 1.2 billion francs, less than a year ago took over, seems to be well developed.

 

 

 

At least no Madoff debacle

 

 

 

He lost money but with his family investment company Kedge Capital. The last year he admitted in an interview. After all, Bertarelli, not as other super-rich to avoid sinking in the fund by Bernie Madoff, he has not invested. We have the funds Madoff Although viewed, but the fingers of them left, said the Kedge manager François-Serge Lhabitant in January.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both already agreed Valencia and so Cahn ordered that it be a choice allowed to SNG.

 

Can you provide a cite?

 

I can't find it in the original Cahn decision (11/27/07), I can't find it in the subsequent order (3/18/2008). In Cahn's order of 5/12/08, it says "the location of the match will be Valencia, Spain or any other location selected by SNG, provided SNG notify GGYC in writing not less than 6 months in advance of the date..."

 

I get that Valencia appears in Cahn's ruling. What I'm questioning is two things

 

-- Can Cahn "order" a solution which doesn't comply with the 4 corners of the deed?

-- If not, how can it be in Valencia in Feb without mutual consent.

 

I haven't seen *any* place where "mutual consent on venue" has been documented. And I highly doubt that the Court would base its ruling on the premise that both players have mentioned Valencia, so it must be OK with both of them. Notably, Cahn's ruling didn't say "there is agreement on Valencia", or that "the terms of the Deed are waived in order to allow Valencia in Feb". Only that SNG can pick Valencia "or any other location". And my instinct is whether they pick Valencia or some other place, it has to comply with the Deed or be agreed by GGYC.

 

See my dilemma? Without *agreement* between the parties (or an amendment to the Deed, which remains the binding doc no matter what Cahn says), Valencia in Feb has problems.

 

This completely misses the point, whether Cahn was wrong or right, (BTW - he was right, parties indicated both wanted Valencia, and if SNG changes its mind and does not want it there, then it will be in the Southern hemisphere, so how was he wrong?), he made an order, that order is now final, (final orders are just that final, not subject to change, etc.), and must be complied with, so it's Valencia or a southern hemisphere site. If SNG thought the order was wrong then it should have raised the issue before the order was final - it did not. Game over.

 

Sledracr you are dancing angels on the head of a pin. The time for this argument has long since past. We just went through this with the SNG date argument, you remember - you cannot have a race in Valencia in February because of the language of the deed of gift and the Court cannot change the DofG, does any of this sound familiar? You know what happened with that argument. Did not work out well for SNG. So let's all just accept that the Court has made an order, the order is final, and must be complied with, and move on from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We just went through this with the SNG date argument, you remember - you cannot have a race in Valencia in February because of the language of the deed of gift and the Court cannot change the DofG, does any of this sound familiar? You know what happened with that argument. Did not work out well for SNG. So let's all just accept that the Court has made an order, the order is final, and must be complied with, and move on from there.

 

In support of this : here's an example of the court overriding the settlor's written intent.

 

FWIW ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
We just went through this with the SNG date argument, you remember - you cannot have a race in Valencia in February because of the language of the deed of gift and the Court cannot change the DofG, does any of this sound familiar? You know what happened with that argument. Did not work out well for SNG. So let's all just accept that the Court has made an order, the order is final, and must be complied with, and move on from there.

 

In support of this : here's an example of the court overriding the settlor's written intent.

 

FWIW ?

Not only did the court make a final order which is correctly pointed out, but to completely kill the "the court can't do that because.....arguement", the DoG allows for mutual consent for deciding such things as time and place, it is within the Court's autority to tell both sides what they can and will mutually agree to. So just via mutual consent there is no conflict with the DoG. If someone does not buy that, try rereading the order referencing the location with that in mind and it might help explain why they wrote it the way they did.

 

IMO the order (at least the location/time portion) was built to try and get the two sides to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have done.

 

I totally get that Cahn's order says "valencia or somewhere else".

 

What I don't get is.... well, let me put it this way: Let's say SNG puts a race course off Valencia in February, and GGYC doesn't show. Instead, files a motion with the court to invalidate SNG's "regatta", as it conflicts with the Deed of Gift. Claims "breach of fiduciary", pointing to the fact that the Trustee has clearly contravened the plain language of the Deed.

 

Some judge gets assigned the case, pulls out the Deed and says "hmmm, yeah, it says right there, you can't hold a regatta in the Northern Hemisphere in February, and there's nothing in the court record that voids or waives that requirement."

 

What's SNG going to point to? The fact that the word "Valencia" appears in Cahn's order?

 

Feh.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I've been in my share of protest hearings and I'd have a field-day with that.

 

In *my* opinion, not that it matters for shit, Cahn canNOT write an order that conflicts with the Deed. Cahn could, in theory, *amend* the Deed to allow Valencia or any other NH venue in February, but did not.

 

So, the only way to read the order that makes any sense to me is "you have to have it in February, 10 months from the date of service. SNG, you can pick Valencia, or you can pick some other spot. However, the Deed still binds, so if you want Valencia or any other NH venue in February you better find a way to get mutual consent. Work it out."

 

Any other interpretation puts a foot down a really slippery slope. For example, what if SNG decides to put it in Dubai? Under Cahn's order, it is "any other location". But it's NH. Could SNG argue that they can have it in Dubai, despite the plain language of the Deed, simply because Cahn said "any other location we choose". I think not.

 

I think the four corners of the Deed carry more weight than the word Valencia in an order. Just my two cents.

 

This is not a protest hearing, it is a legal proceedings, and there are rules. If GGYC were so stupid as to not show, in itself a ridiculous assumption, then they lose. The order says what it says - did SNG comply with the order, yes, GGYC is out of luck.

 

Look, let's try to be a little rational here. If GGYC does not want to hold the event in Valencia, then when SNG announces Valencia, assuming it does so, then they will go to court, it they do not agree with Valencia and make the argument that you are making. That may or may not be successful - I doubt they will go, and a very seriously doubt they would be successful. The one thing they will not, repeat not do, is not show up. They would get thrown out of court so fast it would make your head spin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
to completely kill the "the court can't do that because.....arguement", the DoG allows for mutual consent for deciding such things as time and place, it is within the Court's autority to tell both sides what they can and will mutually agree to

 

bzzzzt. sorry, no.

 

The deed is a legal document. The court cannot override that document, they can only uphold it or formally change it.

 

The deed says [paraphrased] "if the Defender and Challenger can agree on terms, those terms can be whatever you want. If you canNOT agree on terms, I (the Deed) will tell you what terms will govern the match."

 

The court canNOT tell the Defender and Challenger to "agree" to specific terms. The court can only hold the conduct of the Defender and Challenger up to the lens of the Deed, and use it to hold them accountable for the actions.

 

So, the court cannot say "I order you to race in Valencia in February whether you both agree or not". The Court can ONLY say "if you agree on Valencia in February, have at it. If you can't agree on that, then the Deed tells you what you can or cannot do, and I'll be here to enforce it."

 

And I still can't find any place in the court *record* where mutual agreement on Valencia in February is documented. It exists in the [separate, non-binding] submissions of the parties. It doesn't exist in any court orders. Which means that the common perception that the court "ordered" Valencia in February, in direct violation of the plain language of the Deed, without "mutual consent" remains problematic.

 

B (still dancing on pinheads)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the ruling is the courts 'mutual consent', as they have become a party to the negotiations..................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

There are many things unsatisfactory with the way the process has worked so far, most especially the SNG win at the Appellate level because of all the consequences it had, but it is what it is.

 

The reason GGYC is happy with Feb is, in many people's estimation, because combined with the delay caused by the Appellate loss, BOR now have the chance to catch up with CZ's program. The original DZ was a quick-n-dirty project in some respects; the CZ project was always planned with a much more 'ambitious' time line. It's not clear yet if EB put too deep a freeze on CZ after his win, negating much of his time advantage, but he certainly demonstrates signs of it when fighting for more time, and when trying to corner DZ into a more static config.

 

The net result is that us fans ~will~ see boats out of two fairly mature programs. And that - of course - means almighty-god fast!

 

Am sure glad it's not me trying to foot the bills, but it's great stuff to watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
to completely kill the "the court can't do that because.....arguement", the DoG allows for mutual consent for deciding such things as time and place, it is within the Court's autority to tell both sides what they can and will mutually agree to

 

bzzzzt. sorry, no.

 

The deed is a legal document. The court cannot override that document, they can only uphold it or formally change it.

 

The deed says [paraphrased] "if the Defender and Challenger can agree on terms, those terms can be whatever you want. If you canNOT agree on terms, I (the Deed) will tell you what terms will govern the match."

 

The court canNOT tell the Defender and Challenger to "agree" to specific terms. The court can only hold the conduct of the Defender and Challenger up to the lens of the Deed, and use it to hold them accountable for the actions.

 

So, the court cannot say "I order you to race in Valencia in February whether you both agree or not". The Court can ONLY say "if you agree on Valencia in February, have at it. If you can't agree on that, then the Deed tells you what you can or cannot do, and I'll be here to enforce it."

 

And I still can't find any place in the court *record* where mutual agreement on Valencia in February is documented. It exists in the [separate, non-binding] submissions of the parties. It doesn't exist in any court orders. Which means that the common perception that the court "ordered" Valencia in February, in direct violation of the plain language of the Deed, without "mutual consent" remains problematic.

 

B (still dancing on pinheads)

Interesting because the court did exactly say that the race would be in Valencia if SNG did not name a location by the dead line imposed by the court.

 

The court can and did.....done, not complicated

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

 

 

(,c,) (1) The supreme court and, where the disposition is made by will,

the surrogate's court in which such will is probated have jurisdiction

over dispositions referred to and authorized by paragraphs (a) and (,b,),

and whenever it appears to such court that circumstances have so changed

since the execution of an instrument making a disposition for religious,

charitable, educational or benevolent purposes as to render

impracticable or impossible a literal compliance with the terms of such

disposition, the court may, on application of the trustee or of the

person having custody of the property subject to the disposition and on

such notice as the court may direct, make an order or decree directing

that such disposition be administered and applied in such manner as in

the judgment of the court will most effectively accomplish its general

purposes, free from any specific restriction, limitation or direction

contained therein; provided, however, that any such order or decree is

effective only with the consent of the creator of the disposition if he

is living . . .

(d) The power of the supreme court or the surrogate's court, as

provided in paragraph (,c,), to prevent the failure of, and to give effect

to dispositions for religious, charitable, educational or benevolent

purposes is not defeated by the circumstance that the beneficiary of any

such disposition does not exist or, if in existence, lacks capacity to

take such disposition at the time it would otherwise become effective,

whether or not the disposition creates an express trust to effectuate

its purposes.

(f) The attorney general shall represent the beneficiaries of such

dispositions for religious, charitable, educational or benevolent

purposes and it shall be his duty to enforce the rights of such

beneficiaries by appropriate proceedings in the courts.

 

 

Last modified: July 31, 2006

 

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

...

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

No lawyer, and I may have exaggerated what we found in the other thread:

 

As per Uniform Code:

 

"SECTION 105. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this

 governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.

 

( B ) The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this [Code] except:

 

[b](13) the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.[/b]

 

Feb 10.

 

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2005final.htm

 

RH - Isn't that what we have been looking for?

 

There's a lot in that thread. It gets pointed out that NY has not adopted the UTC, but in one post Mahguah says he posted the relevant NY statute, and it's almost identical. I can't find that, must be back in a different thread. Lots of good comments by TimT, CCruiser and others on the subject too

 

(shrug) Hope this helps..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

...

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

No lawyer, and I may have exaggerated what we found in the other thread:

 

As per Uniform Code:

 

"SECTION 105. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this

 governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.

 

( B ) The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this [Code] except:

 

[b](13) the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.[/b]

 

Feb 10.

 

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2005final.htm

 

RH - Isn't that what we have been looking for?

 

There's a lot in that thread. It gets pointed out that NY has not adopted the UTC, but in one post Mahguah says he posted the relevant NY statute, and it's almost identical. I can't find that, must be back in a different thread. Lots of good comments by TimT, CCruiser and others on the subject too

 

(shrug) Hope this helps..

 

 

BRO NY NEVER ADOPTED UTC YOU JUST POSTED

 

THEY HAVE SIMILIAR CODES

 

I POSTED BOTH CODES AND SECTIONS WAY BACK --MAYBE NOW YOU FOLKS GET THE TRUST CODE IMPORTANCE- I WAS STATING ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

...

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

No lawyer, and I may have exaggerated what we found in the other thread:

 

As per Uniform Code:

 

"SECTION 105. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this

 governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.

 

( B ) The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this [Code] except:

 

[b](13) the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.[/b]

 

Feb 10.

 

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2005final.htm

 

RH - Isn't that what we have been looking for?

 

There's a lot in that thread. It gets pointed out that NY has not adopted the UTC, but in one post Mahguah says he posted the relevant NY statute, and it's almost identical. I can't find that, must be back in a different thread. Lots of good comments by TimT, CCruiser and others on the subject too

 

(shrug) Hope this helps..

 

 

BRO NY NEVER ADOPTED UTC YOU JUST POSTED

 

THEY HAVE SIMILIAR CODES

 

I POSTED BOTH CODES AND SECTIONS WAY BACK --MAYBE NOW YOU FOLKS GET THE TRUST CODE IMPORTANCE- I WAS STATING ?

 

YES AND NO. YOUR POSTS ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES> I CAUGHT THE FACT THAT THE UTC IS NOT IN FORCE = MAYBE THE THIRD RETSATEMENT OF TRUSTS IS RELEVANT>

 

MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE I POSTED ABOVE IS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIES CAHN'T (BE BOTHERED ANYMORE) OVERRIDING THE LITERAL INTERPRETAION OF THE DEEED.

 

SO I KNOW.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

...

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

No lawyer, and I may have exaggerated what we found in the other thread:

 

As per Uniform Code:

 

"SECTION 105. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this

 governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.

 

( B ) The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this [Code] except:

 

[b](13) the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.[/b]

 

Feb 10.

 

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2005final.htm

 

RH - Isn't that what we have been looking for?

 

There's a lot in that thread. It gets pointed out that NY has not adopted the UTC, but in one post Mahguah says he posted the relevant NY statute, and it's almost identical. I can't find that, must be back in a different thread. Lots of good comments by TimT, CCruiser and others on the subject too

 

(shrug) Hope this helps..

 

 

BRO NY NEVER ADOPTED UTC YOU JUST POSTED

 

THEY HAVE SIMILIAR CODES

 

I POSTED BOTH CODES AND SECTIONS WAY BACK --MAYBE NOW YOU FOLKS GET THE TRUST CODE IMPORTANCE- I WAS STATING ?

 

YES AND NO. YOUR POSTS ARE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES> I CAUGHT THE FACT THAT THE UTC IS NOT IN FORCE = MAYBE THE THIRD RETSATEMENT OF TRUSTS IS RELEVANT>

 

MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE I POSTED ABOVE IS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIES CAHN'T (BE BOTHERED ANYMORE) OVERRIDING THE LITERAL INTERPRETAION OF THE DEEED.

 

SO I KNOW.

[size=4]SO = PLEASE I KNOW TOO

[/size]

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAHGUAH SAY -- READ THE MAHGUAH MANIFESTO STRING--AND HUSTON'S POSTS WE PLACED FOR THE TRUST LAWS CODES ETC-

 

THIS MIGHT BE OLD NEWS

 

 

VALENCIA-= VIOLENCIA

F1 »

 

Valencia GP to be caught up in corruption case?

 

The European Grand Prix could be facing an uncertain future as one of its principal supporters faces a court hearing on allegations of corruption that could include the development of the Valencia harbourside venue.

 

Regional president Francisco Camps - who played a key role in convincing Bernie Ecclestone to switch the European GP from Germany to Spain in response to the growing popularity of F1 in the wake of Fernando Alonso's back-to-back world titles - is due in court today [Wednesday] to face charges of accepting 'bribes and backhanders' in exchange for awarding key 'contracts and illegal building permits'. It is thought that these contracts could include some of those involved in the construction of both the 'street circuit' used for the Valencia-based grand prix, and the America's Cup port development in which it is situated.

 

The allegations go beyond 46-year old Camps and include various members of the regional administration operated by the Partido Popular party. The opposition, led by a group of other party administrators under the Compromís banner, has called for the resignation of all those implicated in the Gürtel corruption case, which has spread to encompass politicians in Madrid as well as Valencia.

 

Compromís has claimed that a degree of political responsibility should be shown by its rival, headlined either by Camps tendering his resignation or calling regional elections in Valencia. High-ranking Partido Popular members, including former regional councillor Víctor Campos and regional general secretary Ricardo Costa are understood to have already appeared in court, with Camps due to be accompanied on Wednesday by regional official Rafael Betoret and Álvaro Pérez, the owner of the Orange Market company which is accused of offering inducements in both Madrid and Valencia.

 

While regional and municipal Partido Popular representatives are suspected of accepting millions of euros in bribes, Camps has claimed that he nothing to hide over rumours suggesting that he accepted suits worth tens of thousands of euros, denying the charges against him, and insisting that the Valencia regional government was 'honourable'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody found the exact NY Trust statute, and the exact phrase, that describes a NY court's power to make the order Cahn did.

 

here's a candidate statute

(see section c) ??

 

§ 8-1.1. Disposition of property for charitable purposes . . .

...

any lawyers out there care to comment ??

No lawyer, and I may have exaggerated what we found in the other thread:

 

As per Uniform Code:

 

"SECTION 105. DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RULES. (a) Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this

 governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.

 

( B ) The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this [Code] except:

 

[b](13) the power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.[/b]

 

Feb 10.

 

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uta/2005final.htm

 

RH - Isn't that what we have been looking for?

 

There's a lot in that thread. It gets pointed out that NY has not adopted the UTC, but in one post Mahguah says he posted the relevant NY statute, and it's almost identical. I can't find that, must be back in a different thread. Lots of good comments by TimT, CCruiser and others on the subject too

 

(shrug) Hope this helps..

 

 

MAHGUAH SAY YOU LOOKING FOR THIS ONE -

 

[b](d) Nothing in this act shall impair the rights and powers of the

courts or the attorney-general of this state.

 

[/b]

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAHGUAH SAY THIS IS THE ONE AGAINST SNG---

 

AND MOST IMPORTANT PAST AND NOW--

 

§ 8-1.4. sUPERVISION oF tRUSTEES fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES

(a) fOR tHE pURPOSES oF tHIS sECTION, "tRUSTEE" mEANS (1) aNY

iNDIVIDUAL, gROUP oF iNDIVIDUALS, eXECUTOR, tRUSTEE, cORPORATION oR

oTHER lEGAL eNTITY hOLDING aND aDMINISTERING pROPERTY fOR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, wHETHER pURSUANT tO aNY wILL, tRUST, oTHER iNSTRUMENT oR

aGREEMENT, cOURT aPPOINTMENT, oR oTHERWISE pURSUANT tO lAW, oVER wHICH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL hAS eNFORCEMENT oR sUPERVISORY pOWERS, (2) aNY

nON-pROFIT cORPORATION oRGANIZED uNDER tHE lAWS oF tHIS sTATE fOR

cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND (3) aNY nON-pROFIT fOREIGN cORPORATION oRGANIZED

fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES, dOING bUSINESS oR hOLDING pROPERTY iN tHIS

sTATE. nEITHER a fOREIGN cORPORATION nOR a tRUSTEE aCTING uNDER tHE wILL

oF, oR aN aGREEMENT eXECUTED bY, a nON-rESIDENT oF tHIS sTATE sHALL

bECOME sUBJECT tO tHE pROVISIONS oF tHIS sECTION mERELY bY rEASON oF

mAINTAINING a bANK, cUSTODY, iNVESTMENT oR sIMILAR aCCOUNT iN tHIS

sTATE.

(B) tHE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING pROVISIONS oF tHIS sECTION dO nOT

aPPLY tO (1) tHE uNITED sTATES, aNY sTATE, tERRITORY oR pOSSESSION oF

tHE uNITED sTATES, tHE dISTRICT oF cOLUMBIA, tHE cOMMONWEALTH oF pUERTO

rICO oR tO aNY oF tHEIR aGENCIES oR gOVERNMENTAL sUBDIVISIONS, (2) aNY

tRUSTEE wHICH iS rEQUIRED bY aNY oTHER pROVISION oF lAW tO rENDER a

fULL, cOMPLETE aND iTEMIZED aNNUAL fINANCIAL rEPORT tO tHE cONGRESS oF

tHE uNITED sTATES oR tO tHE lEGISLATURE oF tHIS sTATE, pROVIDED tHAT

sUCH rEPORT cONTAINS tHE iNFORMATION rEQUIRED oF tRUSTEES pURSUANT tO

tHIS aRTICLE, (3) cORPORATIONS oRGANIZED uNDER tHE rELIGIOUS

cORPORATIONS lAW aND oTHER rELIGIOUS aGENCIES aND oRGANIZATIONS, aND

cHARITIES, aGENCIES aND oRGANIZATIONS oPERATED, sUPERVISED oR cONTROLLED

bY oR iN cONNECTION wITH a rELIGIOUS oRGANIZATION, (4) eDUCATIONAL

iNSTITUTIONS iNCORPORATED uNDER tHE eDUCATION lAW oR bY sPECIAL aCT, (5)

aNY hOSPITAL, (6) fRATERNAL, pATRIOTIC, vETERANS, vOLUNTEER

fIREFIGHTERS, vOLUNTEER aMBULANCE wORKERS, sOCIAL, sTUDENT oR aLUMNI

oRGANIZATIONS aND hISTORICAL sOCIETIES cHARTERED bY tHE nEW yORK sTATE

bOARD oF rEGENTS, (7) a tRUST fOR wHICH tHERE iS a cORPORATE tRUSTEE

aCTING aS sOLE tRUSTEE oR cO-tRUSTEE uNDER tHE tERMS oF a wILL oF a

dECEDENT wHO dIED dOMICILED iN a sTATE oTHER tHAN nEW yORK oR a tRUST

iNSTRUMENT eXECUTED bY a nON-rESIDENT oF tHE sTATE oF nEW yORK, (8) aNY

tRUST iN wHICH aND sO lONG aS tHE cHARITABLE iNTEREST iS dEFERRED oR

cONTINGENT, (9) aNY pERSON wHO, iN hIS oR hER cAPACITY aS aN oFFICER,

dIRECTOR oR tRUSTEE oF aNY cORPORATION oR oRGANIZATION mENTIONED iN tHIS

pARAGRAPH, hOLDS pROPERTY fOR tHE rELIGIOUS, eDUCATIONAL oR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES oF sUCH cORPORATION oR oRGANIZATION sO lONG aS sUCH cORPORATION

oR oRGANIZATION iS rEGISTERED wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL pURSUANT tO tHIS

sECTION, (10) aNY cEMETERY cORPORATION sUBJECT tO tHE pROVISIONS oF

aRTICLE fIFTEEN oF tHE nOT-fOR-pROFIT cORPORATION lAW, (11) tHE sTATE

pARENT tEACHERS aSSOCIATION aND aNY pARENT tEACHERS aSSOCIATION

aFFILIATED wITH aN eDUCATIONAL iNSTITUTION tHAT iS sUBJECT tO tHE

jURISDICTION oF tHE sTATE eDUCATION dEPARTMENT, (12) aNY cORPORATION

oRGANIZED uNDER aRTICLE fORTY-tHREE oF tHE iNSURANCE lAW. tHE pROVISIONS

oF tHIS sUBDIVISION sHALL aPPLY oNLY tO tHE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING

rEQUIREMENTS oF tHIS sECTION aND sHALL nOT lIMIT, iMPAIR, cHANGE oR

aLTER aNY oTHER pROVISION oF tHIS aRTICLE, tHE nOT-fOR-pROFIT

cORPORATION lAW oR aNY oTHER pROVISION oF lAW.

© tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL eSTABLISH aND mAINTAIN a rEGISTER oF

aLL tRUSTEES cONTAINING sUCH iNFORMATION aS tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL dEEMS

aPPROPRIATE, aND tO tHAT eND mAY cONDUCT sUCH iNVESTIGATIONS aS hE oR

sHE dEEMS nECESSARY aND sHALL oBTAIN fROM pUBLIC rECORDS, cOURT

oFFICERS, tAXING aUTHORITIES, tRUSTEES aND oTHER sOURCES wITHOUT tHE

pAYMENT oF aNY fEE oR cHARGE, wHATEVER iNFORMATION, cOPIES oF

iNSTRUMENTS, rEPORTS aND rECORDS aRE nEEDED fOR tHE eSTABLISHMENT aND

mAINTENANCE oF tHE rEGISTER.

(d) eVERY tRUSTEE sHALL fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, wITHIN sIX

mONTHS aFTER aNY pROPERTY hELD bY hIM oR hER oR aNY iNCOME tHEREFROM iS

rEQUIRED tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES, a cOPY oF tHE iNSTRUMENT

pROVIDING fOR hIS oR hER tITLE, pOWERS aND dUTIES; pROVIDED, hOWEVER,

tHAT aNY tRUSTEE cURRENTLY rEGISTERED wITH tHE dEPARTMENT oF lAW

pURSUANT tO aRTICLE 7-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW sHALL bE dEEMED tO hAVE

cOMPLIED wITH tHIS pARAGRAPH. iF aNY pROPERTY hELD bY a tRUSTEE oR aNY

iNCOME tHEREFROM iS rEQUIRED tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES aT tHE

tIME tHIS sECTION bECOMES eFFECTIVE, tHE fILING sHALL bE mADE wITHIN sIX

mONTHS tHEREAFTER.

(e) (1) wHENEVER aNY tRUSTEE oR oTHER pERSON, hOLDING pROPERTY oR aNY

iNCOME tHEREFROM, wHICH mAY bE rEQUIRED aT aNY tIME tO bE dEVOTED tO

cHARITABLE pURPOSES, sHALL fILE iN aNY cOURT iN tHIS sTATE (a) aNY

pETITION fOR iNSTRUCTIONS rELATING tO tHE aDMINISTRATION oR uSE oF sUCH

pROPERTY oR iNCOME, (B) aNY pETITION fOR tHE cONSTRUCTION oF tHE

iNSTRUMENT uNDER wHICH sUCH pROPERTY oR iNCOME iS hELD, © aNY pETITION

rESPECTING tHE dISPOSITION oR dISTRIBUTION oF sUCH pROPERTY oR iNCOME oR

(d) aNY aCCOUNTING, dUE nOTICE oF tHE aCTION oR pROCEEDING sHALL bE

sERVED bY tHE pETITIONER uPON tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL tOGETHER wITH a cOPY

oF aNY pETITION, aCCOUNTING, wILL oR tRUST iNSTRUMENT.

(2) wHENEVER aNY iNSTRUMENT oF a tESTAMENTARY nATURE wHICH pROVIDES

fOR a dISPOSITION fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES iS tHE sUBJECT oF (a) aN

aPPLICATION fOR dENIAL oF pROBATE, (B) oBJECTIONS tO pROBATE oR © aN

aPPLICATION fOR aPPROVAL oF a cOMPROMISE aGREEMENT iN rESPECT oF

pROBATE, dUE nOTICE oF tHE aCTION oR pROCEEDING sHALL bE sERVED bY tHE

pETITIONER uPON tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL tOGETHER wITH a cOPY oF tHE

iNSTRUMENT aND oF aNY sUCH aPPLICATION, oBJECTIONS oR aGREEMENT.

(f) (1) eVERY tRUSTEE sHALL, iN aDDITION tO fILING cOPIES oF aNY

iNSTRUMENT rEQUIRED uNDER pARAGRAPH (d) oF tHIS sECTION, fILE wITH tHE

aTTORNEY gENERAL aND aLL iDENTIFIED cURRENT cHARITABLE bENEFICIARIES

wRITTEN aNNUAL fINANCIAL rEPORTS, uNDER pENALTIES fOR pERJURY, oN fORMS

pRESCRIBED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, sETTING fORTH iNFORMATION aS tO tHE

nATURE oF tHE aSSETS hELD fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND tHE aDMINISTRATION

tHEREOF bY tHE tRUSTEE, aND sHALL, fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL aND

aLL iDENTIFIED cURRENT cHARITABLE bENEFICIARIES a nOTICE oF tHE

tERMINATION oF tHE iNTEREST oF aNY pARTY iN a tRUST tHAT wOULD cAUSE aLL

oR pART oF tHE tRUST aSSETS tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES oR tO

hAVE tHE iNCOME tHEREFROM sO aPPLIED, iN aCCORDANCE wITH rULES aND

rEGULATIONS oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL.

(2) tRUSTEES rEQUIRED tO rEPORT tO tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL uNDER aRTICLE

7-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW sHALL cOMPLY wITH tHIS pARAGRAPH bY fILING wITH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL iN aDDITION tO aNY oTHER rEPORTS rEQUIRED hEREIN,

cOPIES oF tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTS rEQUIRED bY sECTION 172-b oF tHE

eXECUTIVE lAW uNLESS sUCH rEPORTS hAVE bEEN fILED pREVIOUSLY.

(g) uNLESS tHE fILING oF rEPORTS iS sUSPENDED aS hEREIN pROVIDED, tHE

fIRST rEPORT oF aNY tRUSTEE sHALL bE fILED nO lATER tHAN sIX mONTHS

aFTER tHE eND oF tHE fISCAL yEAR oF tHE tRUSTEE dURING wHICH hE oR sHE

bECOMES sUBJECT tO tHIS sECTION.

(h) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL mAKE rULES aND rEGULATIONS nECESSARY

fOR tHE aDMINISTRATION oF tHIS sECTION, iNCLUDING rULES aND rEGULATIONS

aS tO tHE tIME fOR fILING rEPORTS, tHE cONTENTS tHEREOF, aND tHE mANNER

oF eXECUTING aND fILING tHEM. hE oR sHE mAY cLASSIFY tRUSTS, eSTATES,

cORPORATIONS aND oTHER tRUSTEES aS tO pURPOSE, nATURE oF aSSETS,

dURATION, aMOUNT oF aSSETS, aMOUNTS tO bE dEVOTED tO cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, oR oTHERWISE, aND mAY eSTABLISH dIFFERENT rULES fOR dIFFERENT

cLASSES aS tO tIME aND nATURE oF tHE rEPORTS rEQUIRED, tO tHE eNDS tHAT

hE oR sHE sHALL rECEIVE cURRENT fINANCIAL rEPORTS aS tO aLL sUCH tRUSTS,

eSTATES, cORPORATIONS oR oTHER tRUSTEES wHICH wILL eNABLE hIM oR hER tO

aSCERTAIN wHETHER tHEY aRE bEING pROPERLY aDMINISTERED. tHE aTTORNEY

gENERAL mAY sUSPEND tHE fILING oF fINANCIAL rEPORTS aS tO a pARTICULAR

tRUSTEE fOR a rEASONABLE, sPECIFICALLY dESIGNATED tIME uPON wRITTEN

aPPLICATION oF tHE tRUSTEE, sIGNED uNDER pENALTIES fOR pERJURY, aND

fILED wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL aND aFTER tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL hAS fILED

iN tHE rEGISTER oF tRUSTEES a wRITTEN sTATEMENT tHAT tHE iNTERESTS oF

tHE bENEFICIARIES wILL nOT bE pREJUDICED tHEREBY aND tHAT pERIODIC

rEPORTS dURING tHE tERM oF sUCH sUSPENSION aRE nOT rEQUIRED fOR pROPER

sUPERVISION bY hIS oR hER oFFICE. tHE fILING oF tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTS

rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION, oR tHE eXEMPTION fROM sUCH fILING oR tHE

sUSPENSION tHEREFROM, sHALL nOT hAVE tHE eFFECT oF aBSOLVING tRUSTEES

fROM aNY rESPONSIBILITY fOR aCCOUNTING fOR pROPERTY oR iNCOME hELD bY

tHEM fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES. a cOPY oF aN aCCOUNT oR oTHER fINANCIAL

rEPORT fILED bY a tRUSTEE iN aNY cOURT iN tHIS sTATE, iF tHE aCCOUNT oR

oTHER fINANCIAL rEPORT sUBSTANTIALLY cOMPLIES wITH tHE rULES aND

rEGULATIONS oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, mAY bE fILED aS a fINANCIAL rEPORT

uNDER tHIS sECTION.

(i) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL mAY iNVESTIGATE tRANSACTIONS aND

rELATIONSHIPS oF tRUSTEES fOR tHE pURPOSE oF dETERMINING wHETHER oR nOT

pROPERTY hELD fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES hAS bEEN aND iS bEING pROPERLY

aDMINISTERED. tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, hIS oR hER aSSISTANTS, dEPUTIES oR

sUCH oTHER oFFICERS aS mAY bE dESIGNATED bY hIM oR hER, aRE eMPOWERED tO

sUBPOENA aNY tRUSTEE, aGENT, fIDUCIARY, bENEFICIARY, iNSTITUTION,

aSSOCIATION oR cORPORATION oR oTHER wITNESS, eXAMINE aNY sUCH wITNESS

uNDER oATH aND, fOR tHIS pURPOSE, aDMINISTER tHE nECESSARY oATHS, aND

rEQUIRE tHE pRODUCTION oF aNY bOOKS oR pAPERS wHICH tHEY dEEM rELEVANT

tO tHE iNQUIRY.

(j) nO pERSON sHALL bE eXCUSED fROM aTTENDING sUCH iNQUIRY pURSUANT tO

tHE mANDATE oF a sUBPOENA, oR fROM pRODUCING a pAPER oR bOOK, oR fROM

bEING eXAMINED oR rEQUIRED tO aNSWER a qUESTION oN tHE gROUND oF fAILURE

oF tENDER oR pAYMENT oF a wITNESS fEE oR mILEAGE, uNLESS aT tHE tIME oF

sUCH aPPEARANCE oR pRODUCTION, aS tHE cASE mAY bE, sUCH wITNESS mAKES a

dEMAND fOR sUCH pAYMENT aS a cONDITION pRECEDENT tO tHE oFFERING oF tHE

tESTIMONY oR pRODUCTION rEQUIRED bY tHE sUBPOENA aND sUCH pAYMENT iS nOT

tHEREUPON mADE. tHE pROVISIONS fOR pAYMENT oF a wITNESS fEE oR mILEAGE

dO nOT aPPLY tO aNY tRUSTEE oR oTHER pERSON hOLDING fUNDS fOR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, oR tO aNY pERSON iN tHE eMPLOY oF aNY sUCH pERSON, wHOSE

cONDUCT oR pRACTICES aRE bEING iNVESTIGATED.

(k) iF a pERSON sUBPOENAED tO aTTEND sUCH iNQUIRY fAILS tO oBEY tHE

mANDATE oF a sUBPOENA wITHOUT rEASONABLE cAUSE, oR iF a pERSON iN

aTTENDANCE uPON sUCH iNQUIRY sHALL wITHOUT rEASONABLE cAUSE rEFUSE tO bE

sWORN oR tO bE eXAMINED oR tO aNSWER a qUESTION oR tO pRODUCE a pAPER oR

bOOK wHEN oRDERED sO tO dO bY tHE oFFICER cONDUCTING sUCH iNQUIRY, hE oR

sHE sHALL bE sUBJECT tO pROCEEDINGS uNDER sUBDIVISION (B) oF sECTION

2308 oF tHE cIVIL pRACTICE lAW aND rULES.

(l) tHE rEGISTER, cOPIES oF tHE iNSTRUMENTS aND tHE rEPORTS fILED wITH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL bE oPEN tO pUBLIC iNSPECTION, sUBJECT tO

rEASONABLE rULES aND rEGULATIONS aDOPTED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, wHICH

mAY iNCLUDE sUCH lIMITATIONS aS tO tYPE oF iNFORMATION sUBJECT tO

iNSPECTION oR pURPOSE oF iNSPECTION aS tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL dEEM

tO bE iN tHE pUBLIC iNTEREST. tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL wITHHOLD fROM

pUBLIC iNSPECTION cOPIES oF aNY rEPORT fILED wITH aNY oTHER gOVERNMENTAL

aGENCY oF tHIS sTATE oR oF tHE uNITED sTATES aND rEQUIRED bY lAW tO bE

kEPT cONFIDENTIAL bY sUCH aGENCY, aND sHALL, uPON rEQUEST oF tHE

tRUSTEE, wITHHOLD fROM pUBLIC iNSPECTION tHAT pORTION oF aNY iNSTRUMENT

fILED wHICH dOES nOT rELATE tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND wHICH iS nOT

oTHERWISE oF pUBLIC rECORD.

(m) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL mAY iNSTITUTE aPPROPRIATE pROCEEDINGS tO

sECURE cOMPLIANCE wITH tHIS sECTION aND tO sECURE tHE pROPER

aDMINISTRATION oF aNY tRUST, cORPORATION oR oTHER rELATIONSHIP tO wHICH

tHIS sECTION aPPLIES. tHE pOWERS aND dUTIES oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL

pROVIDED iN tHIS sECTION aRE iN aDDITION tO aLL oTHER pOWERS aND dUTIES

hE oR sHE mAY hAVE. nO cOURT sHALL mODIFY oR tERMINATE tHE pOWERS aND

rESPONSIBILITIES oF aNY tRUST, cORPORATION oR oTHER tRUSTEE uNLESS tHE

aTTORNEY gENERAL iS a pARTY tO tHE pROCEEDING, bUT nOTHING iN tHIS

sECTION sHALL oTHERWISE iMPAIR oR rESTRICT tHE jURISDICTION oF aNY cOURT

wITH rESPECT tO tHE mATTERS cOVERED bY iT. tHE fAILURE oF aNY tRUSTEE tO

rEGISTER oR tO fILE rEPORTS aS rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION mAY bE gROUND

fOR jUDICIAL rEMOVAL oF aNY pERSON rESPONSIBLE fOR sUCH fAILURE.

(n) tHIS sECTION sHALL aPPLY rEGARDLESS oF aNY cONTRARY pROVISIONS oF

aNY iNSTRUMENT aND sHALL bE lIBERALLY cONSTRUED sO aS tO eFFECTUATE iTS

gENERAL pURPOSE oF pROTECTING tHE pUBLIC iNTEREST iN cHARITABLE uSES,

pURPOSES aND dISPOSITIONS.

(o) eVERY oFFICER, aGENCY, bOARD oR cOMMISSION oF tHIS sTATE oR

pOLITICAL sUBDIVISIONS oF tHIS sTATE oR aGENCIES tHEREOF rECEIVING

aPPLICATIONS fOR eXEMPTION fROM tAXATION oF aNY tRUSTEE sUBJECT tO tHIS

sECTION sHALL aNNUALLY fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL a lIST oF aLL

aPPLICATIONS rECEIVED dURING tHE yEAR aND sHALL nOTIFY tHE aTTORNEY

gENERAL oF aNY sUSPENSION oR rEVOCATION oF a tAX eXEMPT sTATUS

pREVIOUSLY gRANTED.

(p) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL cOLLECT fROM eACH tRUSTEE aT tHE tIME

oF fILING oF tHE pERIODIC rEPORTS rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION a fEE fOR tHE

fILING oF sUCH rEPORTS aS fOLLOWS:

(1) tWENTY-fIVE dOLLARS, iF tHE nET wORTH oF tHE pROPERTY hELD bY sUCH

tRUSTEE fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES iS lESS tHAN fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS,

(2) fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS oR mORE

bUT lESS tHAN tWO hUNDRED aND fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS,

(3) oNE hUNDRED dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS tWO hUNDRED aND fIFTY

tHOUSAND dOLLARS oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN oNE mILLION dOLLARS,

(4) tWO hUNDRED fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS oNE mILLION dOLLARS

oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN tEN mILLION dOLLARS,

(5) sEVEN hUNDRED aND fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS tEN mILLION

dOLLARS oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN fIFTY mILLION dOLLARS, aND

(6) oNE tHOUSAND fIVE hUNDRED dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS fIFTY

mILLION dOLLARS oR mORE.

(q) aNY tRUSTEE sHALL bE eXEMPT fROM tHE aNNUAL rEPORTING rEQUIREMENTS

oF tHIS sECTION bY fILING eACH yEAR wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL a vERIFIED

sTATEMENT eXECUTED bY sUCH tRUSTEE aTTESTING tHAT dURING tHE aNNUAL

rEPORTING pERIOD (1) tHE gROSS rECEIPTS rECEIVED bY sAID tRUSTEE dURING

sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD wERE lESS tHAN tWENTY-fIVE tHOUSAND dOLLARS

aND tHAT (2) tHE tOTAL aSSETS hELD bY sUCH tRUSTEE aT nO tIME dURING

sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD eXCEEDED tWENTY-fIVE tHOUSAND dOLLARS. fOR

tHE pURPOSES oF tHIS pARAGRAPH, gROSS rECEIPTS mEAN tHE tOTAL rECEIVED

dURING tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTING pERIOD oF (a) gIFTS, gRANTS, aND

cONTRIBUTIONS; (B) gROSS iNCOME aND rEVENUE fROM aLL sOURCES; aND ©

gROSS aMOUNTS fROM sALES oF aSSETS, oTHER tHAN iNVENTORY; aND tOTAL

aSSETS mEAN tHE tOTAL pRINCIPAL aND tHE aCCUMULATED iNCOME, iF aNY, hELD

bY sUCH tRUSTEE fOR pURPOSES oF cHARITABLE dISTRIBUTION oN aNY dAY

dURING sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD.

® a tRUSTEE wHO fAILS tO cOMPLY wITH pARAGRAPH (d), (f) oR (g) oF

tHIS sECTION sHALL, aFTER nOTICE oF sAID fAILURE sERVED uPON hIM oR hER

bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL bY cERTIFIED mAIL, rETURN rECEIPT rEQUESTED, bE

lIABLE tO tHE sTATE oF nEW yORK fOR a fINE oF tEN dOLLARS a dAY nOT tO

eXCEED oNE tHOUSAND dOLLARS fOR eACH fAILURE tO cOMPLY aFTER tHE

eXPIRATION oF tHE tHIRTY dAY pERIOD fOLLOWING tHE rECEIPT oF tHE nOTICE

fROM tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, eXCEPT tHAT tHE tIME tO cOMPLY mAY bE

eXTENDED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL. wHERE tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, aFTER sUCH

tHIRTY dAY pERIOD hAS eXPIRED, fINDS tHAT tHE fAILURE tO cOMPLY wITH

pARAGRAPH (d), (f) oR (g) oF tHIS sECTION iS dUE tO eXCUSABLE iGNORANCE

oR iNADVERTENCE oR oTHER rEASONABLE cAUSE, tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL

wAIVE tHE fINE iMPOSED bY tHIS pARAGRAPH.

(s) a tRUSTEE sHALL nOT bE qUALIFIED tO mAKE aPPLICATION fOR fUNDS oR

gRANTS oR tO rECEIVE sUCH fUNDS fROM aNY dEPARTMENT oR aGENCY oF tHE

sTATE wITHOUT cERTIFYING cOMPLIANCE wITH pARAGRAPHS (d), (f) aND (g) oF

tHIS sECTION aND aLL aPPLICABLE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING rEQUIREMENTS

oF aRTICLE sEVEN-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW.

 

NOT ALL CAPS - YOU SAID WAS HARD TO READ-

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

THERE ARE LAWS AND TREATY MOST PEOPLE DONT HONOR-->

 

OK HERE YOU GO BRO RED NECK -OTHER PILGRIMS ETC-

 

PERFECT PILGRIM ENGLISH SENTENCES-- ME LEARNY GOOD?

 

 

 

§ 8-1.4. Supervision of trustees for charitable purposes

(a) for the purposes of this section, "trustee" means (1) any

Individual, group of individuals, executor, trustee, corporation or

Other legal entity holding and administering property for charitable

Purposes, whether pursuant to any will, trust, other instrument or

Agreement, court appointment, or otherwise pursuant to law, over which

The attorney general has enforcement or supervisory powers, (2) any

Non-profit corporation organized under the laws of this state for

Charitable purposes and (3) any non-profit foreign corporation organized

For charitable purposes, doing business or holding property in this

State. Neither a foreign corporation nor a trustee acting under the will

Of, or an agreement executed by, a non-resident of this state shall

Become subject to the provisions of this section merely by reason of

Maintaining a bank, custody, investment or similar account in this

State.

 

(B) the registration and reporting provisions of this section do not

Apply to (1) the united states, any state, territory or possession of

The united states, the district of columbia, the commonwealth of puerto

Rico or to any of their agencies or governmental subdivisions, (2) any

Trustee which is required by any other provision of law to render a

Full, complete and itemized annual financial report to the congress of

The united states or to the legislature of this state, provided that

Such report contains the information required of trustees pursuant to

This article, (3) corporations organized under the religious

Corporations law and other religious agencies and organizations, and

Charities, agencies and organizations operated, supervised or controlled

By or in connection with a religious organization, (4) educational

Institutions incorporated under the education law or by special act, (5)

Any hospital, (6) fraternal, patriotic, veterans, volunteer

Firefighters, volunteer ambulance workers, social, student or alumni

Organizations and historical societies chartered by the new york state

Board of regents, (7) a trust for which there is a corporate trustee

Acting as sole trustee or co-trustee under the terms of a will of a

Decedent who died domiciled in a state other than new york or a trust

Instrument executed by a non-resident of the state of new york, (8) any

Trust in which and so long as the charitable interest is deferred or

Contingent, (9) any person who, in his or her capacity as an officer,

Director or trustee of any corporation or organization mentioned in this

Paragraph, holds property for the religious, educational or charitable

Purposes of such corporation or organization so long as such corporation

Or organization is registered with the attorney general pursuant to this

Section, (10) any cemetery corporation subject to the provisions of

Article fifteen of the not-for-profit corporation law, (11) the state

Parent teachers association and any parent teachers association

Affiliated with an educational institution that is subject to the

Jurisdiction of the state education department, (12) any corporation

Organized under article forty-three of the insurance law. The provisions

Of this subdivision shall apply only to the registration and reporting

Requirements of this section and shall not limit, impair, change or

Alter any other provision of this article, the not-for-profit

Corporation law or any other provision of law.

 

© the attorney general shall establish and maintain a register of

All trustees containing such information as the attorney general deems

Appropriate, and to that end may conduct such investigations as he or

She deems necessary and shall obtain from public records, court

Officers, taxing authorities, trustees and other sources without the

Payment of any fee or charge, whatever information, copies of

Instruments, reports and records are needed for the establishment and

Maintenance of the register.

 

(d) every trustee shall file with the attorney general, within six

Months after any property held by him or her or any income therefrom is

Required to be applied to charitable purposes, a copy of the instrument

Providing for his or her title, powers and duties; provided, however,

That any trustee currently registered with the department of law

Pursuant to article 7-a of the executive law shall be deemed to have

Complied with this paragraph. If any property held by a trustee or any

Income therefrom is required to be applied to charitable purposes at the

Time this section becomes effective, the filing shall be made within six

Months thereafter.

 

(e) (1) whenever any trustee or other person, holding property or any

Income therefrom, which may be required at any time to be devoted to

Charitable purposes, shall file in any court in this state (a) any

Petition for instructions relating to the administration or use of such

Property or income, (B) any petition for the construction of the

Instrument under which such property or income is held, © any petition

Respecting the disposition or distribution of such property or income or

(d) any accounting, due notice of the action or proceeding shall be

Served by the petitioner upon the attorney general together with a copy

Of any petition, accounting, will or trust instrument.

 

(2) whenever any instrument of a testamentary nature which provides

For a disposition for charitable purposes is the subject of (a) an

Application for denial of probate, (B) objections to probate or © an

Application for approval of a compromise agreement in respect of

Probate, due notice of the action or proceeding shall be served by the

Petitioner upon the attorney general together with a copy of the

Instrument and of any such application, objections or agreement.

(f) (1) every trustee shall, in addition to filing copies of any

Instrument required under paragraph (d) of this section, file with the

Attorney general and all identified current charitable beneficiaries

Written annual financial reports, under penalties for perjury, on forms

Prescribed by the attorney general, setting forth information as to the

Nature of the assets held for charitable purposes and the administration

Thereof by the trustee, and shall, file with the attorney general and

All identified current charitable beneficiaries a notice of the

Termination of the interest of any party in a trust that would cause all

Or part of the trust assets to be applied to charitable purposes or to

Have the income therefrom so applied, in accordance with rules and

Regulations of the attorney general.

 

(2) trustees required to report to the attorney general under article

7-a of the executive law shall comply with this paragraph by filing with

The attorney general in addition to any other reports required herein,

Copies of the financial reports required by section 172-b of the

Executive law unless such reports have been filed previously.

(g) unless the filing of reports is suspended as herein provided, the

First report of any trustee shall be filed no later than six months

After the end of the fiscal year of the trustee during which he or she

Becomes subject to this section.

 

(h) the attorney general shall make rules and regulations necessary

For the administration of this section, including rules and regulations

As to the time for filing reports, the contents thereof, and the manner

Of executing and filing them. He or she may classify trusts, estates,

Corporations and other trustees as to purpose, nature of assets,

Duration, amount of assets, amounts to be devoted to charitable

Purposes, or otherwise, and may establish different rules for different

Classes as to time and nature of the reports required, to the ends that

He or she shall receive current financial reports as to all such trusts,

Estates, corporations or other trustees which will enable him or her to

Ascertain whether they are being properly administered. The attorney

General may suspend the filing of financial reports as to a particular

Trustee for a reasonable, specifically designated time upon written

Application of the trustee, signed under penalties for perjury, and

Filed with the attorney general and after the attorney general has filed

In the register of trustees a written statement that the interests of

The beneficiaries will not be prejudiced thereby and that periodic

Reports during the term of such suspension are not required for proper

Supervision by his or her office. The filing of the financial reports

Required by this section, or the exemption from such filing or the

Suspension therefrom, shall not have the effect of absolving trustees

From any responsibility for accounting for property or income held by

Them for charitable purposes. A copy of an account or other financial

Report filed by a trustee in any court in this state, if the account or

Other financial report substantially complies with the rules and

Regulations of the attorney general, may be filed as a financial report

Under this section.

 

(i) the attorney general may investigate transactions and

Relationships of trustees for the purpose of determining whether or not

Property held for charitable purposes has been and is being properly

Administered. The attorney general, his or her assistants, deputies or

Such other officers as may be designated by him or her, are empowered to

Subpoena any trustee, agent, fiduciary, beneficiary, institution,

Association or corporation or other witness, examine any such witness

Under oath and, for this purpose, administer the necessary oaths, and

Require the production of any books or papers which they deem relevant

To the inquiry.

 

(j) no person shall be excused from attending such inquiry pursuant to

The mandate of a subpoena, or from producing a paper or book, or from

Being examined or required to answer a question on the ground of failure

Of tender or payment of a witness fee or mileage, unless at the time of

Such appearance or production, as the case may be, such witness makes a

Demand for such payment as a condition precedent to the offering of the

Testimony or production required by the subpoena and such payment is not

Thereupon made. The provisions for payment of a witness fee or mileage

Do not apply to any trustee or other person holding funds for charitable

Purposes, or to any person in the employ of any such person, whose

Conduct or practices are being investigated.

 

(k) if a person subpoenaed to attend such inquiry fails to obey the

Mandate of a subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in

Attendance upon such inquiry shall without reasonable cause refuse to be

Sworn or to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a paper or

Book when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, he or

She shall be subject to proceedings under subdivision (B) of section

2308 of the civil practice law and rules.

 

(l) the register, copies of the instruments and the reports filed with

The attorney general shall be open to public inspection, subject to

Reasonable rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general, which

May include such limitations as to type of information subject to

Inspection or purpose of inspection as the attorney general shall deem

To be in the public interest. The attorney general shall withhold from

Public inspection copies of any report filed with any other governmental

Agency of this state or of the united states and required by law to be

Kept confidential by such agency, and shall, upon request of the

Trustee, withhold from public inspection that portion of any instrument

Filed which does not relate to charitable purposes and which is not

Otherwise of public record.

 

(m) the attorney general may institute appropriate proceedings to

Secure compliance with this section and to secure the proper

Administration of any trust, corporation or other relationship to which

This section applies. The powers and duties of the attorney general

Provided in this section are in addition to all other powers and duties

He or she may have. No court shall modify or terminate the powers and

Responsibilities of any trust, corporation or other trustee unless the

Attorney general is a party to the proceeding, but nothing in this

Section shall otherwise impair or restrict the jurisdiction of any court

With respect to the matters covered by it. The failure of any trustee to

Register or to file reports as required by this section may be ground

For judicial removal of any person responsible for such failure.

(n) this section shall apply regardless of any contrary provisions of

Any instrument and shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its

General purpose of protecting the public interest in charitable uses,

Purposes and dispositions.

 

(o) every officer, agency, board or commission of this state or

Political subdivisions of this state or agencies thereof receiving

Applications for exemption from taxation of any trustee subject to this

Section shall annually file with the attorney general a list of all

Applications received during the year and shall notify the attorney

General of any suspension or revocation of a tax exempt status

Previously granted.

 

(p) the attorney general shall collect from each trustee at the time

Of filing of the periodic reports required by this section a fee for the

Filing of such reports as follows:

(1) twenty-five dollars, if the net worth of the property held by such

Trustee for charitable purposes is less than fifty thousand dollars,

(2) fifty dollars if such net worth is fifty thousand dollars or more

But less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,

(3) one hundred dollars if such net worth is two hundred and fifty

Thousand dollars or more but less than one million dollars,

(4) two hundred fifty dollars if such net worth is one million dollars

Or more but less than ten million dollars,

(5) seven hundred and fifty dollars if such net worth is ten million

Dollars or more but less than fifty million dollars, and

(6) one thousand five hundred dollars if such net worth is fifty

Million dollars or more.

 

(q) any trustee shall be exempt from the annual reporting requirements

Of this section by filing each year with the attorney general a verified

Statement executed by such trustee attesting that during the annual

Reporting period (1) the gross receipts received by said trustee during

Such annual reporting period were less than twenty-five thousand dollars

And that (2) the total assets held by such trustee at no time during

Such annual reporting period exceeded twenty-five thousand dollars. For

The purposes of this paragraph, gross receipts mean the total received

During the financial reporting period of (a) gifts, grants, and

Contributions; (B) gross income and revenue from all sources; and ©

Gross amounts from sales of assets, other than inventory; and total

Assets mean the total principal and the accumulated income, if any, held

By such trustee for purposes of charitable distribution on any day

During such annual reporting period.

 

® a trustee who fails to comply with paragraph (d), (f) or (g) of

This section shall, after notice of said failure served upon him or her

By the attorney general by certified mail, return receipt requested, be

Liable to the state of new york for a fine of ten dollars a day not to

Exceed one thousand dollars for each failure to comply after the

Expiration of the thirty day period following the receipt of the notice

From the attorney general, except that the time to comply may be

Extended by the attorney general. Where the attorney general, after such

Thirty day period has expired, finds that the failure to comply with

Paragraph (d), (f) or (g) of this section is due to excusable ignorance

Or inadvertence or other reasonable cause, the attorney general shall

Waive the fine imposed by this paragraph.

 

(s) a trustee shall not be qualified to make application for funds or

Grants or to receive such funds from any department or agency of the

State without certifying compliance with paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of

This section and all applicable registration and reporting requirements

Of article seven-a of the executive law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

all the info is interesting but lets just use logic for a moment-

 

We can assume that the judges understand the statute better than most and would be considered experts in "all ways statute".

 

The judges made several orders two of which state;

1) That the race is to be held 10 months from the order date.

2) That SNG can decide the location but if they do not by a certain dead line it's Valencia.

 

The judges know that the parties have not been able to agree on much if not anything and it is likely that both orders would be enforced.

 

SNG tried to say that the 10 months doesn't mean Feb. - A different judge who is also an expert in "all ways statute" told them yes it does mean Feb.

 

Do we really expect that the two orders are not compatable under the statute, when they have been written by experts of the statute and reiterated by another expert of the statute?

Link to post
Share on other sites
all the info is interesting but lets just use logic for a moment-

 

We can assume that the judges understand the statute better than most and would be considered experts in "all ways statute".

 

The judges made several orders two of which state;

1) That the race is to be held 10 months from the order date.

2) That SNG can decide the location but if they do not by a certain dead line it's Valencia.

 

The judges know that the parties have not been able to agree on much if not anything and it is likely that both orders would be enforced.

 

SNG tried to say that the 10 months doesn't mean Feb. - A different judge who is also an expert in "all ways statute" told them yes it does mean Feb.

 

Do we really expect that the two orders are not compatable under the statute, when they have been written by experts of the statute and reiterated by another expert of the statute?

 

I believe the relevant order was Cahn's and that was reinstated by the C o A. Thus GGYC's insistance in JK's court that she did not have power to rule on anything outside the scope of Cahn's order. Then again, I am no legal expert...

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAHGUAH SAY THIS IS THE ONE AGAINST SNG---

 

AND MOST IMPORTANT PAST AND NOW--

 

§ 8-1.4. sUPERVISION oF tRUSTEES fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES

(a) fOR tHE pURPOSES oF tHIS sECTION, "tRUSTEE" mEANS (1) aNY

iNDIVIDUAL, gROUP oF iNDIVIDUALS, eXECUTOR, tRUSTEE, cORPORATION oR

oTHER lEGAL eNTITY hOLDING aND aDMINISTERING pROPERTY fOR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, wHETHER pURSUANT tO aNY wILL, tRUST, oTHER iNSTRUMENT oR

aGREEMENT, cOURT aPPOINTMENT, oR oTHERWISE pURSUANT tO lAW, oVER wHICH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL hAS eNFORCEMENT oR sUPERVISORY pOWERS, (2) aNY

nON-pROFIT cORPORATION oRGANIZED uNDER tHE lAWS oF tHIS sTATE fOR

cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND (3) aNY nON-pROFIT fOREIGN cORPORATION oRGANIZED

fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES, dOING bUSINESS oR hOLDING pROPERTY iN tHIS

sTATE. nEITHER a fOREIGN cORPORATION nOR a tRUSTEE aCTING uNDER tHE wILL

oF, oR aN aGREEMENT eXECUTED bY, a nON-rESIDENT oF tHIS sTATE sHALL

bECOME sUBJECT tO tHE pROVISIONS oF tHIS sECTION mERELY bY rEASON oF

mAINTAINING a bANK, cUSTODY, iNVESTMENT oR sIMILAR aCCOUNT iN tHIS

sTATE.

( B) tHE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING pROVISIONS oF tHIS sECTION dO nOT

aPPLY tO (1) tHE uNITED sTATES, aNY sTATE, tERRITORY oR pOSSESSION oF

tHE uNITED sTATES, tHE dISTRICT oF cOLUMBIA, tHE cOMMONWEALTH oF pUERTO

rICO oR tO aNY oF tHEIR aGENCIES oR gOVERNMENTAL sUBDIVISIONS, (2) aNY

tRUSTEE wHICH iS rEQUIRED bY aNY oTHER pROVISION oF lAW tO rENDER a

fULL, cOMPLETE aND iTEMIZED aNNUAL fINANCIAL rEPORT tO tHE cONGRESS oF

tHE uNITED sTATES oR tO tHE lEGISLATURE oF tHIS sTATE, pROVIDED tHAT

sUCH rEPORT cONTAINS tHE iNFORMATION rEQUIRED oF tRUSTEES pURSUANT tO

tHIS aRTICLE, (3) cORPORATIONS oRGANIZED uNDER tHE rELIGIOUS

cORPORATIONS lAW aND oTHER rELIGIOUS aGENCIES aND oRGANIZATIONS, aND

cHARITIES, aGENCIES aND oRGANIZATIONS oPERATED, sUPERVISED oR cONTROLLED

bY oR iN cONNECTION wITH a rELIGIOUS oRGANIZATION, (4) eDUCATIONAL

iNSTITUTIONS iNCORPORATED uNDER tHE eDUCATION lAW oR bY sPECIAL aCT, (5)

aNY hOSPITAL, (6) fRATERNAL, pATRIOTIC, vETERANS, vOLUNTEER

fIREFIGHTERS, vOLUNTEER aMBULANCE wORKERS, sOCIAL, sTUDENT oR aLUMNI

oRGANIZATIONS aND hISTORICAL sOCIETIES cHARTERED bY tHE nEW yORK sTATE

bOARD oF rEGENTS, (7) a tRUST fOR wHICH tHERE iS a cORPORATE tRUSTEE

aCTING aS sOLE tRUSTEE oR cO-tRUSTEE uNDER tHE tERMS oF a wILL oF a

dECEDENT wHO dIED dOMICILED iN a sTATE oTHER tHAN nEW yORK oR a tRUST

iNSTRUMENT eXECUTED bY a nON-rESIDENT oF tHE sTATE oF nEW yORK, (8) aNY

tRUST iN wHICH aND sO lONG aS tHE cHARITABLE iNTEREST iS dEFERRED oR

cONTINGENT, (9) aNY pERSON wHO, iN hIS oR hER cAPACITY aS aN oFFICER,

dIRECTOR oR tRUSTEE oF aNY cORPORATION oR oRGANIZATION mENTIONED iN tHIS

pARAGRAPH, hOLDS pROPERTY fOR tHE rELIGIOUS, eDUCATIONAL oR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES oF sUCH cORPORATION oR oRGANIZATION sO lONG aS sUCH cORPORATION

oR oRGANIZATION iS rEGISTERED wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL pURSUANT tO tHIS

sECTION, (10) aNY cEMETERY cORPORATION sUBJECT tO tHE pROVISIONS oF

aRTICLE fIFTEEN oF tHE nOT-fOR-pROFIT cORPORATION lAW, (11) tHE sTATE

pARENT tEACHERS aSSOCIATION aND aNY pARENT tEACHERS aSSOCIATION

aFFILIATED wITH aN eDUCATIONAL iNSTITUTION tHAT iS sUBJECT tO tHE

jURISDICTION oF tHE sTATE eDUCATION dEPARTMENT, (12) aNY cORPORATION

oRGANIZED uNDER aRTICLE fORTY-tHREE oF tHE iNSURANCE lAW. tHE pROVISIONS

oF tHIS sUBDIVISION sHALL aPPLY oNLY tO tHE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING

rEQUIREMENTS oF tHIS sECTION aND sHALL nOT lIMIT, iMPAIR, cHANGE oR

aLTER aNY oTHER pROVISION oF tHIS aRTICLE, tHE nOT-fOR-pROFIT

cORPORATION lAW oR aNY oTHER pROVISION oF lAW.

© tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL eSTABLISH aND mAINTAIN a rEGISTER oF

aLL tRUSTEES cONTAINING sUCH iNFORMATION aS tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL dEEMS

aPPROPRIATE, aND tO tHAT eND mAY cONDUCT sUCH iNVESTIGATIONS aS hE oR

sHE dEEMS nECESSARY aND sHALL oBTAIN fROM pUBLIC rECORDS, cOURT

oFFICERS, tAXING aUTHORITIES, tRUSTEES aND oTHER sOURCES wITHOUT tHE

pAYMENT oF aNY fEE oR cHARGE, wHATEVER iNFORMATION, cOPIES oF

iNSTRUMENTS, rEPORTS aND rECORDS aRE nEEDED fOR tHE eSTABLISHMENT aND

mAINTENANCE oF tHE rEGISTER.

(d) eVERY tRUSTEE sHALL fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, wITHIN sIX

mONTHS aFTER aNY pROPERTY hELD bY hIM oR hER oR aNY iNCOME tHEREFROM iS

rEQUIRED tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES, a cOPY oF tHE iNSTRUMENT

pROVIDING fOR hIS oR hER tITLE, pOWERS aND dUTIES; pROVIDED, hOWEVER,

tHAT aNY tRUSTEE cURRENTLY rEGISTERED wITH tHE dEPARTMENT oF lAW

pURSUANT tO aRTICLE 7-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW sHALL bE dEEMED tO hAVE

cOMPLIED wITH tHIS pARAGRAPH. iF aNY pROPERTY hELD bY a tRUSTEE oR aNY

iNCOME tHEREFROM iS rEQUIRED tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES aT tHE

tIME tHIS sECTION bECOMES eFFECTIVE, tHE fILING sHALL bE mADE wITHIN sIX

mONTHS tHEREAFTER.

(e) (1) wHENEVER aNY tRUSTEE oR oTHER pERSON, hOLDING pROPERTY oR aNY

iNCOME tHEREFROM, wHICH mAY bE rEQUIRED aT aNY tIME tO bE dEVOTED tO

cHARITABLE pURPOSES, sHALL fILE iN aNY cOURT iN tHIS sTATE (a) aNY

pETITION fOR iNSTRUCTIONS rELATING tO tHE aDMINISTRATION oR uSE oF sUCH

pROPERTY oR iNCOME, ( B) aNY pETITION fOR tHE cONSTRUCTION oF tHE

iNSTRUMENT uNDER wHICH sUCH pROPERTY oR iNCOME iS hELD, © aNY pETITION

rESPECTING tHE dISPOSITION oR dISTRIBUTION oF sUCH pROPERTY oR iNCOME oR

(d) aNY aCCOUNTING, dUE nOTICE oF tHE aCTION oR pROCEEDING sHALL bE

sERVED bY tHE pETITIONER uPON tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL tOGETHER wITH a cOPY

oF aNY pETITION, aCCOUNTING, wILL oR tRUST iNSTRUMENT.

(2) wHENEVER aNY iNSTRUMENT oF a tESTAMENTARY nATURE wHICH pROVIDES

fOR a dISPOSITION fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES iS tHE sUBJECT oF (a) aN

aPPLICATION fOR dENIAL oF pROBATE, ( B) oBJECTIONS tO pROBATE oR © aN

aPPLICATION fOR aPPROVAL oF a cOMPROMISE aGREEMENT iN rESPECT oF

pROBATE, dUE nOTICE oF tHE aCTION oR pROCEEDING sHALL bE sERVED bY tHE

pETITIONER uPON tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL tOGETHER wITH a cOPY oF tHE

iNSTRUMENT aND oF aNY sUCH aPPLICATION, oBJECTIONS oR aGREEMENT.

(f) (1) eVERY tRUSTEE sHALL, iN aDDITION tO fILING cOPIES oF aNY

iNSTRUMENT rEQUIRED uNDER pARAGRAPH (d) oF tHIS sECTION, fILE wITH tHE

aTTORNEY gENERAL aND aLL iDENTIFIED cURRENT cHARITABLE bENEFICIARIES

wRITTEN aNNUAL fINANCIAL rEPORTS, uNDER pENALTIES fOR pERJURY, oN fORMS

pRESCRIBED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, sETTING fORTH iNFORMATION aS tO tHE

nATURE oF tHE aSSETS hELD fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND tHE aDMINISTRATION

tHEREOF bY tHE tRUSTEE, aND sHALL, fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL aND

aLL iDENTIFIED cURRENT cHARITABLE bENEFICIARIES a nOTICE oF tHE

tERMINATION oF tHE iNTEREST oF aNY pARTY iN a tRUST tHAT wOULD cAUSE aLL

oR pART oF tHE tRUST aSSETS tO bE aPPLIED tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES oR tO

hAVE tHE iNCOME tHEREFROM sO aPPLIED, iN aCCORDANCE wITH rULES aND

rEGULATIONS oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL.

(2) tRUSTEES rEQUIRED tO rEPORT tO tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL uNDER aRTICLE

7-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW sHALL cOMPLY wITH tHIS pARAGRAPH bY fILING wITH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL iN aDDITION tO aNY oTHER rEPORTS rEQUIRED hEREIN,

cOPIES oF tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTS rEQUIRED bY sECTION 172-b oF tHE

eXECUTIVE lAW uNLESS sUCH rEPORTS hAVE bEEN fILED pREVIOUSLY.

(g) uNLESS tHE fILING oF rEPORTS iS sUSPENDED aS hEREIN pROVIDED, tHE

fIRST rEPORT oF aNY tRUSTEE sHALL bE fILED nO lATER tHAN sIX mONTHS

aFTER tHE eND oF tHE fISCAL yEAR oF tHE tRUSTEE dURING wHICH hE oR sHE

bECOMES sUBJECT tO tHIS sECTION.

(h) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL mAKE rULES aND rEGULATIONS nECESSARY

fOR tHE aDMINISTRATION oF tHIS sECTION, iNCLUDING rULES aND rEGULATIONS

aS tO tHE tIME fOR fILING rEPORTS, tHE cONTENTS tHEREOF, aND tHE mANNER

oF eXECUTING aND fILING tHEM. hE oR sHE mAY cLASSIFY tRUSTS, eSTATES,

cORPORATIONS aND oTHER tRUSTEES aS tO pURPOSE, nATURE oF aSSETS,

dURATION, aMOUNT oF aSSETS, aMOUNTS tO bE dEVOTED tO cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, oR oTHERWISE, aND mAY eSTABLISH dIFFERENT rULES fOR dIFFERENT

cLASSES aS tO tIME aND nATURE oF tHE rEPORTS rEQUIRED, tO tHE eNDS tHAT

hE oR sHE sHALL rECEIVE cURRENT fINANCIAL rEPORTS aS tO aLL sUCH tRUSTS,

eSTATES, cORPORATIONS oR oTHER tRUSTEES wHICH wILL eNABLE hIM oR hER tO

aSCERTAIN wHETHER tHEY aRE bEING pROPERLY aDMINISTERED. tHE aTTORNEY

gENERAL mAY sUSPEND tHE fILING oF fINANCIAL rEPORTS aS tO a pARTICULAR

tRUSTEE fOR a rEASONABLE, sPECIFICALLY dESIGNATED tIME uPON wRITTEN

aPPLICATION oF tHE tRUSTEE, sIGNED uNDER pENALTIES fOR pERJURY, aND

fILED wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL aND aFTER tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL hAS fILED

iN tHE rEGISTER oF tRUSTEES a wRITTEN sTATEMENT tHAT tHE iNTERESTS oF

tHE bENEFICIARIES wILL nOT bE pREJUDICED tHEREBY aND tHAT pERIODIC

rEPORTS dURING tHE tERM oF sUCH sUSPENSION aRE nOT rEQUIRED fOR pROPER

sUPERVISION bY hIS oR hER oFFICE. tHE fILING oF tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTS

rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION, oR tHE eXEMPTION fROM sUCH fILING oR tHE

sUSPENSION tHEREFROM, sHALL nOT hAVE tHE eFFECT oF aBSOLVING tRUSTEES

fROM aNY rESPONSIBILITY fOR aCCOUNTING fOR pROPERTY oR iNCOME hELD bY

tHEM fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES. a cOPY oF aN aCCOUNT oR oTHER fINANCIAL

rEPORT fILED bY a tRUSTEE iN aNY cOURT iN tHIS sTATE, iF tHE aCCOUNT oR

oTHER fINANCIAL rEPORT sUBSTANTIALLY cOMPLIES wITH tHE rULES aND

rEGULATIONS oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, mAY bE fILED aS a fINANCIAL rEPORT

uNDER tHIS sECTION.

(i) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL mAY iNVESTIGATE tRANSACTIONS aND

rELATIONSHIPS oF tRUSTEES fOR tHE pURPOSE oF dETERMINING wHETHER oR nOT

pROPERTY hELD fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES hAS bEEN aND iS bEING pROPERLY

aDMINISTERED. tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, hIS oR hER aSSISTANTS, dEPUTIES oR

sUCH oTHER oFFICERS aS mAY bE dESIGNATED bY hIM oR hER, aRE eMPOWERED tO

sUBPOENA aNY tRUSTEE, aGENT, fIDUCIARY, bENEFICIARY, iNSTITUTION,

aSSOCIATION oR cORPORATION oR oTHER wITNESS, eXAMINE aNY sUCH wITNESS

uNDER oATH aND, fOR tHIS pURPOSE, aDMINISTER tHE nECESSARY oATHS, aND

rEQUIRE tHE pRODUCTION oF aNY bOOKS oR pAPERS wHICH tHEY dEEM rELEVANT

tO tHE iNQUIRY.

(j) nO pERSON sHALL bE eXCUSED fROM aTTENDING sUCH iNQUIRY pURSUANT tO

tHE mANDATE oF a sUBPOENA, oR fROM pRODUCING a pAPER oR bOOK, oR fROM

bEING eXAMINED oR rEQUIRED tO aNSWER a qUESTION oN tHE gROUND oF fAILURE

oF tENDER oR pAYMENT oF a wITNESS fEE oR mILEAGE, uNLESS aT tHE tIME oF

sUCH aPPEARANCE oR pRODUCTION, aS tHE cASE mAY bE, sUCH wITNESS mAKES a

dEMAND fOR sUCH pAYMENT aS a cONDITION pRECEDENT tO tHE oFFERING oF tHE

tESTIMONY oR pRODUCTION rEQUIRED bY tHE sUBPOENA aND sUCH pAYMENT iS nOT

tHEREUPON mADE. tHE pROVISIONS fOR pAYMENT oF a wITNESS fEE oR mILEAGE

dO nOT aPPLY tO aNY tRUSTEE oR oTHER pERSON hOLDING fUNDS fOR cHARITABLE

pURPOSES, oR tO aNY pERSON iN tHE eMPLOY oF aNY sUCH pERSON, wHOSE

cONDUCT oR pRACTICES aRE bEING iNVESTIGATED.

(k) iF a pERSON sUBPOENAED tO aTTEND sUCH iNQUIRY fAILS tO oBEY tHE

mANDATE oF a sUBPOENA wITHOUT rEASONABLE cAUSE, oR iF a pERSON iN

aTTENDANCE uPON sUCH iNQUIRY sHALL wITHOUT rEASONABLE cAUSE rEFUSE tO bE

sWORN oR tO bE eXAMINED oR tO aNSWER a qUESTION oR tO pRODUCE a pAPER oR

bOOK wHEN oRDERED sO tO dO bY tHE oFFICER cONDUCTING sUCH iNQUIRY, hE oR

sHE sHALL bE sUBJECT tO pROCEEDINGS uNDER sUBDIVISION ( B) oF sECTION

2308 oF tHE cIVIL pRACTICE lAW aND rULES.

(l) tHE rEGISTER, cOPIES oF tHE iNSTRUMENTS aND tHE rEPORTS fILED wITH

tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL bE oPEN tO pUBLIC iNSPECTION, sUBJECT tO

rEASONABLE rULES aND rEGULATIONS aDOPTED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, wHICH

mAY iNCLUDE sUCH lIMITATIONS aS tO tYPE oF iNFORMATION sUBJECT tO

iNSPECTION oR pURPOSE oF iNSPECTION aS tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL dEEM

tO bE iN tHE pUBLIC iNTEREST. tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL wITHHOLD fROM

pUBLIC iNSPECTION cOPIES oF aNY rEPORT fILED wITH aNY oTHER gOVERNMENTAL

aGENCY oF tHIS sTATE oR oF tHE uNITED sTATES aND rEQUIRED bY lAW tO bE

kEPT cONFIDENTIAL bY sUCH aGENCY, aND sHALL, uPON rEQUEST oF tHE

tRUSTEE, wITHHOLD fROM pUBLIC iNSPECTION tHAT pORTION oF aNY iNSTRUMENT

fILED wHICH dOES nOT rELATE tO cHARITABLE pURPOSES aND wHICH iS nOT

oTHERWISE oF pUBLIC rECORD.

(m) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL mAY iNSTITUTE aPPROPRIATE pROCEEDINGS tO

sECURE cOMPLIANCE wITH tHIS sECTION aND tO sECURE tHE pROPER

aDMINISTRATION oF aNY tRUST, cORPORATION oR oTHER rELATIONSHIP tO wHICH

tHIS sECTION aPPLIES. tHE pOWERS aND dUTIES oF tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL

pROVIDED iN tHIS sECTION aRE iN aDDITION tO aLL oTHER pOWERS aND dUTIES

hE oR sHE mAY hAVE. nO cOURT sHALL mODIFY oR tERMINATE tHE pOWERS aND

rESPONSIBILITIES oF aNY tRUST, cORPORATION oR oTHER tRUSTEE uNLESS tHE

aTTORNEY gENERAL iS a pARTY tO tHE pROCEEDING, bUT nOTHING iN tHIS

sECTION sHALL oTHERWISE iMPAIR oR rESTRICT tHE jURISDICTION oF aNY cOURT

wITH rESPECT tO tHE mATTERS cOVERED bY iT. tHE fAILURE oF aNY tRUSTEE tO

rEGISTER oR tO fILE rEPORTS aS rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION mAY bE gROUND

fOR jUDICIAL rEMOVAL oF aNY pERSON rESPONSIBLE fOR sUCH fAILURE.

(n) tHIS sECTION sHALL aPPLY rEGARDLESS oF aNY cONTRARY pROVISIONS oF

aNY iNSTRUMENT aND sHALL bE lIBERALLY cONSTRUED sO aS tO eFFECTUATE iTS

gENERAL pURPOSE oF pROTECTING tHE pUBLIC iNTEREST iN cHARITABLE uSES,

pURPOSES aND dISPOSITIONS.

(o) eVERY oFFICER, aGENCY, bOARD oR cOMMISSION oF tHIS sTATE oR

pOLITICAL sUBDIVISIONS oF tHIS sTATE oR aGENCIES tHEREOF rECEIVING

aPPLICATIONS fOR eXEMPTION fROM tAXATION oF aNY tRUSTEE sUBJECT tO tHIS

sECTION sHALL aNNUALLY fILE wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL a lIST oF aLL

aPPLICATIONS rECEIVED dURING tHE yEAR aND sHALL nOTIFY tHE aTTORNEY

gENERAL oF aNY sUSPENSION oR rEVOCATION oF a tAX eXEMPT sTATUS

pREVIOUSLY gRANTED.

(p) tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL cOLLECT fROM eACH tRUSTEE aT tHE tIME

oF fILING oF tHE pERIODIC rEPORTS rEQUIRED bY tHIS sECTION a fEE fOR tHE

fILING oF sUCH rEPORTS aS fOLLOWS:

(1) tWENTY-fIVE dOLLARS, iF tHE nET wORTH oF tHE pROPERTY hELD bY sUCH

tRUSTEE fOR cHARITABLE pURPOSES iS lESS tHAN fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS,

(2) fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS oR mORE

bUT lESS tHAN tWO hUNDRED aND fIFTY tHOUSAND dOLLARS,

(3) oNE hUNDRED dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS tWO hUNDRED aND fIFTY

tHOUSAND dOLLARS oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN oNE mILLION dOLLARS,

(4) tWO hUNDRED fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS oNE mILLION dOLLARS

oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN tEN mILLION dOLLARS,

(5) sEVEN hUNDRED aND fIFTY dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS tEN mILLION

dOLLARS oR mORE bUT lESS tHAN fIFTY mILLION dOLLARS, aND

(6) oNE tHOUSAND fIVE hUNDRED dOLLARS iF sUCH nET wORTH iS fIFTY

mILLION dOLLARS oR mORE.

(q) aNY tRUSTEE sHALL bE eXEMPT fROM tHE aNNUAL rEPORTING rEQUIREMENTS

oF tHIS sECTION bY fILING eACH yEAR wITH tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL a vERIFIED

sTATEMENT eXECUTED bY sUCH tRUSTEE aTTESTING tHAT dURING tHE aNNUAL

rEPORTING pERIOD (1) tHE gROSS rECEIPTS rECEIVED bY sAID tRUSTEE dURING

sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD wERE lESS tHAN tWENTY-fIVE tHOUSAND dOLLARS

aND tHAT (2) tHE tOTAL aSSETS hELD bY sUCH tRUSTEE aT nO tIME dURING

sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD eXCEEDED tWENTY-fIVE tHOUSAND dOLLARS. fOR

tHE pURPOSES oF tHIS pARAGRAPH, gROSS rECEIPTS mEAN tHE tOTAL rECEIVED

dURING tHE fINANCIAL rEPORTING pERIOD oF (a) gIFTS, gRANTS, aND

cONTRIBUTIONS; ( B) gROSS iNCOME aND rEVENUE fROM aLL sOURCES; aND ©

gROSS aMOUNTS fROM sALES oF aSSETS, oTHER tHAN iNVENTORY; aND tOTAL

aSSETS mEAN tHE tOTAL pRINCIPAL aND tHE aCCUMULATED iNCOME, iF aNY, hELD

bY sUCH tRUSTEE fOR pURPOSES oF cHARITABLE dISTRIBUTION oN aNY dAY

dURING sUCH aNNUAL rEPORTING pERIOD.

® a tRUSTEE wHO fAILS tO cOMPLY wITH pARAGRAPH (d), (f) oR (g) oF

tHIS sECTION sHALL, aFTER nOTICE oF sAID fAILURE sERVED uPON hIM oR hER

bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL bY cERTIFIED mAIL, rETURN rECEIPT rEQUESTED, bE

lIABLE tO tHE sTATE oF nEW yORK fOR a fINE oF tEN dOLLARS a dAY nOT tO

eXCEED oNE tHOUSAND dOLLARS fOR eACH fAILURE tO cOMPLY aFTER tHE

eXPIRATION oF tHE tHIRTY dAY pERIOD fOLLOWING tHE rECEIPT oF tHE nOTICE

fROM tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, eXCEPT tHAT tHE tIME tO cOMPLY mAY bE

eXTENDED bY tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL. wHERE tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL, aFTER sUCH

tHIRTY dAY pERIOD hAS eXPIRED, fINDS tHAT tHE fAILURE tO cOMPLY wITH

pARAGRAPH (d), (f) oR (g) oF tHIS sECTION iS dUE tO eXCUSABLE iGNORANCE

oR iNADVERTENCE oR oTHER rEASONABLE cAUSE, tHE aTTORNEY gENERAL sHALL

wAIVE tHE fINE iMPOSED bY tHIS pARAGRAPH.

(s) a tRUSTEE sHALL nOT bE qUALIFIED tO mAKE aPPLICATION fOR fUNDS oR

gRANTS oR tO rECEIVE sUCH fUNDS fROM aNY dEPARTMENT oR aGENCY oF tHE

sTATE wITHOUT cERTIFYING cOMPLIANCE wITH pARAGRAPHS (d), (f) aND (g) oF

tHIS sECTION aND aLL aPPLICABLE rEGISTRATION aND rEPORTING rEQUIREMENTS

oF aRTICLE sEVEN-a oF tHE eXECUTIVE lAW.

 

NOT ALL CAPS - YOU SAID WAS HARD TO READ-

 

 

The firewater kicked in on the crazed indian again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

 

THERE ARE LAWS AND TREATY MOST PEOPLE DONT HONOR-->

 

OK HERE YOU GO BRO RED NECK -OTHER PILGRIMS ETC-

 

PERFECT PILGRIM ENGLISH SENTENCES-- ME LEARNY GOOD?

 

 

 

§ 8-1.4. Supervision of trustees for charitable purposes

(a) for the purposes of this section, "trustee" means (1) any

Individual, group of individuals, executor, trustee, corporation or

Other legal entity holding and administering property for charitable

Purposes, whether pursuant to any will, trust, other instrument or

Agreement, court appointment, or otherwise pursuant to law, over which

The attorney general has enforcement or supervisory powers, (2) any

Non-profit corporation organized under the laws of this state for

Charitable purposes and (3) any non-profit foreign corporation organized

For charitable purposes, doing business or holding property in this

State. Neither a foreign corporation nor a trustee acting under the will

Of, or an agreement executed by, a non-resident of this state shall

Become subject to the provisions of this section merely by reason of

Maintaining a bank, custody, investment or similar account in this

State.

 

(B) the registration and reporting provisions of this section do not

Apply to (1) the united states, any state, territory or possession of

The united states, the district of columbia, the commonwealth of puerto

Rico or to any of their agencies or governmental subdivisions, (2) any

Trustee which is required by any other provision of law to render a

Full, complete and itemized annual financial report to the congress of

The united states or to the legislature of this state, provided that

Such report contains the information required of trustees pursuant to

This article, (3) corporations organized under the religious

Corporations law and other religious agencies and organizations, and

Charities, agencies and organizations operated, supervised or controlled

By or in connection with a religious organization, (4) educational

Institutions incorporated under the education law or by special act, (5)

Any hospital, (6) fraternal, patriotic, veterans, volunteer

Firefighters, volunteer ambulance workers, social, student or alumni

Organizations and historical societies chartered by the new york state

Board of regents, (7) a trust for which there is a corporate trustee

Acting as sole trustee or co-trustee under the terms of a will of a

Decedent who died domiciled in a state other than new york or a trust

Instrument executed by a non-resident of the state of new york, (8) any

Trust in which and so long as the charitable interest is deferred or

Contingent, (9) any person who, in his or her capacity as an officer,

Director or trustee of any corporation or organization mentioned in this

Paragraph, holds property for the religious, educational or charitable

Purposes of such corporation or organization so long as such corporation

Or organization is registered with the attorney general pursuant to this

Section, (10) any cemetery corporation subject to the provisions of

Article fifteen of the not-for-profit corporation law, (11) the state

Parent teachers association and any parent teachers association

Affiliated with an educational institution that is subject to the

Jurisdiction of the state education department, (12) any corporation

Organized under article forty-three of the insurance law. The provisions

Of this subdivision shall apply only to the registration and reporting

Requirements of this section and shall not limit, impair, change or

Alter any other provision of this article, the not-for-profit

Corporation law or any other provision of law.

 

© the attorney general shall establish and maintain a register of

All trustees containing such information as the attorney general deems

Appropriate, and to that end may conduct such investigations as he or

She deems necessary and shall obtain from public records, court

Officers, taxing authorities, trustees and other sources without the

Payment of any fee or charge, whatever information, copies of

Instruments, reports and records are needed for the establishment and

Maintenance of the register.

 

(d) every trustee shall file with the attorney general, within six

Months after any property held by him or her or any income therefrom is

Required to be applied to charitable purposes, a copy of the instrument

Providing for his or her title, powers and duties; provided, however,

That any trustee currently registered with the department of law

Pursuant to article 7-a of the executive law shall be deemed to have

Complied with this paragraph. If any property held by a trustee or any

Income therefrom is required to be applied to charitable purposes at the

Time this section becomes effective, the filing shall be made within six

Months thereafter.

 

(e) (1) whenever any trustee or other person, holding property or any

Income therefrom, which may be required at any time to be devoted to

Charitable purposes, shall file in any court in this state (a) any

Petition for instructions relating to the administration or use of such

Property or income, (B) any petition for the construction of the

Instrument under which such property or income is held, © any petition

Respecting the disposition or distribution of such property or income or

(d) any accounting, due notice of the action or proceeding shall be

Served by the petitioner upon the attorney general together with a copy

Of any petition, accounting, will or trust instrument.

 

(2) whenever any instrument of a testamentary nature which provides

For a disposition for charitable purposes is the subject of (a) an

Application for denial of probate, (B) objections to probate or © an

Application for approval of a compromise agreement in respect of

Probate, due notice of the action or proceeding shall be served by the

Petitioner upon the attorney general together with a copy of the

Instrument and of any such application, objections or agreement.

(f) (1) every trustee shall, in addition to filing copies of any

Instrument required under paragraph (d) of this section, file with the

Attorney general and all identified current charitable beneficiaries

Written annual financial reports, under penalties for perjury, on forms

Prescribed by the attorney general, setting forth information as to the

Nature of the assets held for charitable purposes and the administration

Thereof by the trustee, and shall, file with the attorney general and

All identified current charitable beneficiaries a notice of the

Termination of the interest of any party in a trust that would cause all

Or part of the trust assets to be applied to charitable purposes or to

Have the income therefrom so applied, in accordance with rules and

Regulations of the attorney general.

 

(2) trustees required to report to the attorney general under article

7-a of the executive law shall comply with this paragraph by filing with

The attorney general in addition to any other reports required herein,

Copies of the financial reports required by section 172-b of the

Executive law unless such reports have been filed previously.

(g) unless the filing of reports is suspended as herein provided, the

First report of any trustee shall be filed no later than six months

After the end of the fiscal year of the trustee during which he or she

Becomes subject to this section.

 

(h) the attorney general shall make rules and regulations necessary

For the administration of this section, including rules and regulations

As to the time for filing reports, the contents thereof, and the manner

Of executing and filing them. He or she may classify trusts, estates,

Corporations and other trustees as to purpose, nature of assets,

Duration, amount of assets, amounts to be devoted to charitable

Purposes, or otherwise, and may establish different rules for different

Classes as to time and nature of the reports required, to the ends that

He or she shall receive current financial reports as to all such trusts,

Estates, corporations or other trustees which will enable him or her to

Ascertain whether they are being properly administered. The attorney

General may suspend the filing of financial reports as to a particular

Trustee for a reasonable, specifically designated time upon written

Application of the trustee, signed under penalties for perjury, and

Filed with the attorney general and after the attorney general has filed

In the register of trustees a written statement that the interests of

The beneficiaries will not be prejudiced thereby and that periodic

Reports during the term of such suspension are not required for proper

Supervision by his or her office. The filing of the financial reports

Required by this section, or the exemption from such filing or the

Suspension therefrom, shall not have the effect of absolving trustees

From any responsibility for accounting for property or income held by

Them for charitable purposes. A copy of an account or other financial

Report filed by a trustee in any court in this state, if the account or

Other financial report substantially complies with the rules and

Regulations of the attorney general, may be filed as a financial report

Under this section.

 

(i) the attorney general may investigate transactions and

Relationships of trustees for the purpose of determining whether or not

Property held for charitable purposes has been and is being properly

Administered. The attorney general, his or her assistants, deputies or

Such other officers as may be designated by him or her, are empowered to

Subpoena any trustee, agent, fiduciary, beneficiary, institution,

Association or corporation or other witness, examine any such witness

Under oath and, for this purpose, administer the necessary oaths, and

Require the production of any books or papers which they deem relevant

To the inquiry.

 

(j) no person shall be excused from attending such inquiry pursuant to

The mandate of a subpoena, or from producing a paper or book, or from

Being examined or required to answer a question on the ground of failure

Of tender or payment of a witness fee or mileage, unless at the time of

Such appearance or production, as the case may be, such witness makes a

Demand for such payment as a condition precedent to the offering of the

Testimony or production required by the subpoena and such payment is not

Thereupon made. The provisions for payment of a witness fee or mileage

Do not apply to any trustee or other person holding funds for charitable

Purposes, or to any person in the employ of any such person, whose

Conduct or practices are being investigated.

 

(k) if a person subpoenaed to attend such inquiry fails to obey the

Mandate of a subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in

Attendance upon such inquiry shall without reasonable cause refuse to be

Sworn or to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a paper or

Book when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, he or

She shall be subject to proceedings under subdivision (B) of section

2308 of the civil practice law and rules.

 

(l) the register, copies of the instruments and the reports filed with

The attorney general shall be open to public inspection, subject to

Reasonable rules and regulations adopted by the attorney general, which

May include such limitations as to type of information subject to

Inspection or purpose of inspection as the attorney general shall deem

To be in the public interest. The attorney general shall withhold from

Public inspection copies of any report filed with any other governmental

Agency of this state or of the united states and required by law to be

Kept confidential by such agency, and shall, upon request of the

Trustee, withhold from public inspection that portion of any instrument

Filed which does not relate to charitable purposes and which is not

Otherwise of public record.

 

(m) the attorney general may institute appropriate proceedings to

Secure compliance with this section and to secure the proper

Administration of any trust, corporation or other relationship to which

This section applies. The powers and duties of the attorney general

Provided in this section are in addition to all other powers and duties

He or she may have. No court shall modify or terminate the powers and

Responsibilities of any trust, corporation or other trustee unless the

Attorney general is a party to the proceeding, but nothing in this

Section shall otherwise impair or restrict the jurisdiction of any court

With respect to the matters covered by it. The failure of any trustee to

Register or to file reports as required by this section may be ground

For judicial removal of any person responsible for such failure.

(n) this section shall apply regardless of any contrary provisions of

Any instrument and shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its

General purpose of protecting the public interest in charitable uses,

Purposes and dispositions.

 

(o) every officer, agency, board or commission of this state or

Political subdivisions of this state or agencies thereof receiving

Applications for exemption from taxation of any trustee subject to this

Section shall annually file with the attorney general a list of all

Applications received during the year and shall notify the attorney

General of any suspension or revocation of a tax exempt status

Previously granted.

 

(p) the attorney general shall collect from each trustee at the time

Of filing of the periodic reports required by this section a fee for the

Filing of such reports as follows:

(1) twenty-five dollars, if the net worth of the property held by such

Trustee for charitable purposes is less than fifty thousand dollars,

(2) fifty dollars if such net worth is fifty thousand dollars or more

But less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,

(3) one hundred dollars if such net worth is two hundred and fifty

Thousand dollars or more but less than one million dollars,

(4) two hundred fifty dollars if such net worth is one million dollars

Or more but less than ten million dollars,

(5) seven hundred and fifty dollars if such net worth is ten million

Dollars or more but less than fifty million dollars, and

(6) one thousand five hundred dollars if such net worth is fifty

Million dollars or more.

 

(q) any trustee shall be exempt from the annual reporting requirements

Of this section by filing each year with the attorney general a verified

Statement executed by such trustee attesting that during the annual

Reporting period (1) the gross receipts received by said trustee during

Such annual reporting period were less than twenty-five thousand dollars

And that (2) the total assets held by such trustee at no time during

Such annual reporting period exceeded twenty-five thousand dollars. For

The purposes of this paragraph, gross receipts mean the total received

During the financial reporting period of (a) gifts, grants, and

Contributions; (B) gross income and revenue from all sources; and ©

Gross amounts from sales of assets, other than inventory; and total

Assets mean the total principal and the accumulated income, if any, held

By such trustee for purposes of charitable distribution on any day

During such annual reporting period.

 

® a trustee who fails to comply with paragraph (d), (f) or (g) of

This section shall, after notice of said failure served upon him or her

By the attorney general by certified mail, return receipt requested, be

Liable to the state of new york for a fine of ten dollars a day not to

Exceed one thousand dollars for each failure to comply after the

Expiration of the thirty day period following the receipt of the notice

From the attorney general, except that the time to comply may be

Extended by the attorney general. Where the attorney general, after such

Thirty day period has expired, finds that the failure to comply with

Paragraph (d), (f) or (g) of this section is due to excusable ignorance

Or inadvertence or other reasonable cause, the attorney general shall

Waive the fine imposed by this paragraph.

 

(s) a trustee shall not be qualified to make application for funds or

Grants or to receive such funds from any department or agency of the

State without certifying compliance with paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of

This section and all applicable registration and reporting requirements

Of article seven-a of the executive law.

 

Now that was funny!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Valencia.

Everyone still seems to ignore the fact that EB has already made his decision for the type of boat he has built. He made that decision based on the type of venue he was going to sail in, which at the time was expressly Valencia. Hence the venue is 'known' at this point because we know that it will be a Valencia-like venue - probably Valencia. If EB were to choose a venue with a different type of weather characteristic, he would be disadvantaging himself - which I don't see happening.

 

l

Link to post
Share on other sites

OLD NEWS-?SORRY LOOKS SERIOUS,

 

MAYBE MED ISNT VIABLE -OR SAFE -

 

 

Navy warships dispatched as Spain invades seas around Gibraltar

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 2:54 PM on 23rd May 2009

 

Comments (104)

Add to My Stories

Royal Navy warships have forced heavily armed Spanish ships to retreat from British waters around Gibraltar.

 

Relations between the 30,000 residents of the British outpost and mainland Spain have become strained following what the Foreign Office described as 'a violation of British sovereignty'.

 

The warships were dispatched after Spanish ships sent boarding parties to inspect fishing boats in British waters, despite having no authority to do so.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...-Gibraltar.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
OLD NEWS-?SORRY LOOKS SERIOUS,

 

MAYBE MED ISNT VIABLE -OR SAFE -

 

 

Navy warships dispatched as Spain invades seas around Gibraltar

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Last updated at 2:54 PM on 23rd May 2009

 

Comments (104)

Add to My Stories

Royal Navy warships have forced heavily armed Spanish ships to retreat from British waters around Gibraltar.

 

Relations between the 30,000 residents of the British outpost and mainland Spain have become strained following what the Foreign Office described as 'a violation of British sovereignty'.

 

The warships were dispatched after Spanish ships sent boarding parties to inspect fishing boats in British waters, despite having no authority to do so.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...-Gibraltar.html

 

Totally irrelevant. Gibraltar's waters end a long way from Valencia. And the Daily Mail loves shite like this but is a long way from being a real newspaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We just went through this with the SNG date argument, you remember - you cannot have a race in Valencia in February because of the language of the deed of gift and the Court cannot change the DofG, does any of this sound familiar? You know what happened with that argument. Did not work out well for SNG. So let's all just accept that the Court has made an order, the order is final, and must be complied with, and move on from there.

In support of this : here's an example of the court overriding the settlor's written intent.

FWIW ?

 

Here's some casual pronouncements from the Alinghi poopdeck that will provide entertainment:

 

http://www.lematin.ch/sports/voile/ernesto...ailleurs-124190

 

Will try to translate some of it on the 'close watch on CZ' thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . the Alinghi poopdeck . . .

. . . hopefully that isn't the Poodles exercise deck you're referring to . . . ??

Poodles are being abused horribly here - if they are of the intelligent, agile and non-yappy Standard type, and free of ridiculous haircuts, they can be very attractive dogs!

 

You see the above article's photo of Bertarelli smiling from the rear trampoline, taken yesterday afternoon while everyone hung around with little hope of any wind? It would be a cruel place to put a poodle, as the masks of the nets are quite big.

Today there has also been lack of wind, but the info a few minutes ago is that they hope now to hold two races and salvage something from the weekend.

http://www.challengejuliusbaer.ch/en/news/...?idContent=1852

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Bertarelli had already considered the latest May 23 letter from GGYC (perhaps only this morning posted on their site), before making his dockside statements in the Le Matin article yesterday. Insofar as the GGYC is naggingly, from his point of view, trying to limit and hurry his choice of location.

 

reporter: Ça sera où, Valence ou Dubaï? Where will it be, Valencia or Dubai?

Bertarelli: Ça peut-être n'importe où, le juge américain a été très clair. Ça pourrait être Valence ou n'importe où ailleurs. "Perhaps it doesn't matter where it is, the American judge was very clear. It could be Valencia or anywhere else."

 

The beginning of the article included the following:

Le choix de l'endroit reste celui du Defender Alinghi. Le jugement confirme qu'Alinghi a le droit de choisir Valence, ou tout autre lieu dans l'hémisphère Nord ou l'hémisphère Sud. De plus, les Américains sont tenus de fournir le certificat du bateau avec lequel ils vont courir... ce qui ne semble pas encore très clair du côté d'Oracle.

The choice of location is in the hands of the defender Alinghi. The judgement confirms that Alinghi has the right to choose Valencia, or any other place in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, the Americans are required to furnish the CHR for the boat in which they will compete, which seems again to not be very clear from Oracle's side.

 

http://www.lematin.ch/sports/voile/ernesto...ailleurs-124190

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Bertarelli had already considered the latest May 23 letter from GGYC (perhaps only this morning posted on their site), before making his dockside statements in the Le Matin article yesterday. Insofar as the GGYC is naggingly, from his point of view, trying to limit and hurry his choice of location.

 

reporter: Ça sera où, Valence ou Dubaï? Where will it be, Valencia or Dubai?

Bertarelli: Ça peut-être n'importe où, le juge américain a été très clair. Ça pourrait être Valence ou n'importe où ailleurs. "Perhaps it doesn't matter where it is, the American judge was very clear. It could be Valencia or anywhere else."

 

The beginning of the article included the following:

Le choix de l'endroit reste celui du Defender Alinghi. Le jugement confirme qu'Alinghi a le droit de choisir Valence, ou tout autre lieu dans l'hémisphère Nord ou l'hémisphère Sud. De plus, les Américains sont tenus de fournir le certificat du bateau avec lequel ils vont courir... ce qui ne semble pas encore très clair du côté d'Oracle.

The choice of location is in the hands of the defender Alinghi. The judgement confirms that Alinghi has the right to choose Valencia, or any other place in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, the Americans are required to furnish the CHR for the boat in which they will compete, which seems again to not be very clear from Oracle's side.

 

http://www.lematin.ch/sports/voile/ernesto...ailleurs-124190

 

Maybe you should also translate parts less flattering for the BORing team such as :

 

......."Tout ça a été fichu par terre parce que quelques individus possèdent un égoïsme sans limite. Pour eux la Coupe de l'America c'est uniquement un trophée et rien d'autre. Ils ne voient pas les intérêts de la communauté du sport et de tous les gens qui aiment la voile."

 

All this has been smashed because some individuals have unlimited egoisms. For them the AC is only a trophy, nothing else. They do not see the interest of the sports community (at large) as well as of all the people who love sailing.

 

And that's only part of the "politically correct love" EB shows to his opponents

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Bertarelli had already considered the latest May 23 letter from GGYC (perhaps only this morning posted on their site), before making his dockside statements in the Le Matin article yesterday. Insofar as the GGYC is naggingly, from his point of view, trying to limit and hurry his choice of location.

 

reporter: Ça sera où, Valence ou Dubaï? Where will it be, Valencia or Dubai?

Bertarelli: Ça peut-être n'importe où, le juge américain a été très clair. Ça pourrait être Valence ou n'importe où ailleurs. "Perhaps it doesn't matter where it is, the American judge was very clear. It could be Valencia or anywhere else."

 

The beginning of the article included the following:

Le choix de l'endroit reste celui du Defender Alinghi. Le jugement confirme qu'Alinghi a le droit de choisir Valence, ou tout autre lieu dans l'hémisphère Nord ou l'hémisphère Sud. De plus, les Américains sont tenus de fournir le certificat du bateau avec lequel ils vont courir... ce qui ne semble pas encore très clair du côté d'Oracle.

The choice of location is in the hands of the defender Alinghi. The judgement confirms that Alinghi has the right to choose Valencia, or any other place in the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere. In addition, the Americans are required to furnish the CHR for the boat in which they will compete, which seems again to not be very clear from Oracle's side.

 

http://www.lematin.ch/sports/voile/ernesto...ailleurs-124190

 

A perfect description of EB. So he should know.

 

Maybe you should also translate parts less flattering for the BORing team such as :

 

......."Tout ça a été fichu par terre parce que quelques individus possèdent un égoïsme sans limite. Pour eux la Coupe de l'America c'est uniquement un trophée et rien d'autre. Ils ne voient pas les intérêts de la communauté du sport et de tous les gens qui aiment la voile."

 

All this has been smashed because some individuals have unlimited egoisms. For them the AC is only a trophy, nothing else. They do not see the interest of the sports community (at large) as well as of all the people who love sailing.

 

And that's only part of the "politically correct love" EB shows to his opponents

 

A perfect description of EB, so he should know

Link to post
Share on other sites