Play it again Sam...

When will the next court challenge be initiated

  • August

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • earlier

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11th hour

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • we're going all the way

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

luminary

Anarchist
714
54
I've been thinking that each time we go through the courts, that we are back on track, only to have it derailed again. I'm gun shy. I reckon we'll be back here in August for sure, maybe before. What to you think?

 

RHough

Super Anarchist
I've been thinking that each time we go through the courts, that we are back on track, only to have it derailed again. I'm gun shy. I reckon we'll be back here in August for sure, maybe before. What to you think?
Earlier ... :(

Within a week or two of BMWO launching a 90x90 anything with a sail ... there will be a motion demanding the CHR

It is possible to get a CG-1270 COD (CHR) in a week or 10 days. The court restating the ASAP qualifies for an expedited request.

IIRC I got mine in about a week on an expedited request based on the boat was traveling to Mexico, pending the Certificate of Documentation.

I don't think this should put BMWO at any risk, they can still modify the boat as long as the tonnage (enclosed volume) does not change by more than 5% or so.

 

phomchick

Super Anarchist
3,820
0
San Francisco
Within a week or two of BMWO launching a 90x90 anything with a sail ... there will be a motion demanding the CHR
It is possible to get a CG-1270 COD (CHR) in a week or 10 days. The court restating the ASAP qualifies for an expedited request.

IIRC I got mine in about a week on an expedited request based on the boat was traveling to Mexico, pending the Certificate of Documentation.

I don't think this should put BMWO at any risk, they can still modify the boat as long as the tonnage (enclosed volume) does not change by more than 5% or so.
So you think the DZ in the tent in San Diego is the only one?

 

luminary

Anarchist
714
54
As they say on a wine-BBS I frequent: "Flawed Poll"! No (obvious) choice for we are done with the courts and will go sailing now.
that would be the 'we're going all the way' option. Clearly that wasnt clear.

 

RHough

Super Anarchist
Within a week or two of BMWO launching a 90x90 anything with a sail ... there will be a motion demanding the CHR
It is possible to get a CG-1270 COD (CHR) in a week or 10 days. The court restating the ASAP qualifies for an expedited request.

IIRC I got mine in about a week on an expedited request based on the boat was traveling to Mexico, pending the Certificate of Documentation.

I don't think this should put BMWO at any risk, they can still modify the boat as long as the tonnage (enclosed volume) does not change by more than 5% or so.
So you think the DZ in the tent in San Diego is the only one?
The way I think it will go;

DZ is relaunched ... no more than two weeks later SNG will file a motion demanding the CHR.

The court will schedule a hearing on the DSQ of GGYC 14 days from the motion filing.

At the hearing GGYC will either produce the CHR or produce proof that they have a second boat that is not complete and thus they cannot produce the CHR yet.

There will be argument that the newer boat cannot be THE boat GGYC named in their challenge of 2007, GGYC will say that their challenge describes THE boat in conceptual form and that in the time between the 2007 challenge and April 2009 acceptance of that challenge, DZI was built as a proof of concept and DZII, which also fits the notice of challenge dimensions is but another version of that concept. THE boat will be the better of the two. GGYC will argue that having two boats to chose from to provide the highest level of competition that is due the Cup is a practice with a long history. Even in the days of Thistle (1887?) the Challenger was considering building two boats that fit the challenge notice and coming to race with the better of the two. In 1987 DC as CoR SDYC had (IIRC) 4 boats to consider during trials before selecting THE boat they would use for the Challenge.

Two weeks after DZII hits the water the process will start again ...

GGYC will point out that the precedent has been that THE boat has not been chosen until close to the match date. They laid the groundwork for this in their filing in response to the motion to disqualify.

At some point February will get moved out ...

It is SNG's interest to NOT win the CHR battle with enough time left to keep the February date ... they have to try to win the CHR battle in a time frame that makes May or June a reasonable time for the match.

 

luminary

Anarchist
714
54
Within a week or two of BMWO launching a 90x90 anything with a sail ... there will be a motion demanding the CHR
It is possible to get a CG-1270 COD (CHR) in a week or 10 days. The court restating the ASAP qualifies for an expedited request.

IIRC I got mine in about a week on an expedited request based on the boat was traveling to Mexico, pending the Certificate of Documentation.

I don't think this should put BMWO at any risk, they can still modify the boat as long as the tonnage (enclosed volume) does not change by more than 5% or so.
So you think the DZ in the tent in San Diego is the only one?
The way I think it will go;

DZ is relaunched ... no more than two weeks later SNG will file a motion demanding the CHR.

The court will schedule a hearing on the DSQ of GGYC 14 days from the motion filing.

At the hearing GGYC will either produce the CHR or produce proof that they have a second boat that is not complete and thus they cannot produce the CHR yet.

There will be argument that the newer boat cannot be THE boat GGYC named in their challenge of 2007, GGYC will say that their challenge describes THE boat in conceptual form and that in the time between the 2007 challenge and April 2009 acceptance of that challenge, DZI was built as a proof of concept and DZII, which also fits the notice of challenge dimensions is but another version of that concept. THE boat will be the better of the two. GGYC will argue that having two boats to chose from to provide the highest level of competition that is due the Cup is a practice with a long history. Even in the days of Thistle (1887?) the Challenger was considering building two boats that fit the challenge notice and coming to race with the better of the two. In 1987 DC as CoR SDYC had (IIRC) 4 boats to consider during trials before selecting THE boat they would use for the Challenge.

Two weeks after DZII hits the water the process will start again ...

GGYC will point out that the precedent has been that THE boat has not been chosen until close to the match date. They laid the groundwork for this in their filing in response to the motion to disqualify.

At some point February will get moved out ...

It is SNG's interest to NOT win the CHR battle with enough time left to keep the February date ... they have to try to win the CHR battle in a time frame that makes May or June a reasonable time for the match.
why would GGYC fall for that. They certainly want to keep the Feb dates, so any action that seriously threatens that will likely produce a CHR(probably a direct court order to produce one by ... date or be dsq). At some point they will produce one, the only reason for delay is to force SNG to commit to a location first so they can make any subsequent modifications. SNG will be sailing in July (some say) so they can observe SNG too.

Interesting thought is that if SNG wants the CHR before they launch, the launch might be delayed till the CHR is received which means that GGYC could in effect further restrict the sailing time of SNG...

 

DC_US55

Super Anarchist
1,809
3
The way I think it will go;
DZ is relaunched ... no more than two weeks later SNG will file a motion demanding the CHR.

The court will schedule a hearing on the DSQ of GGYC 14 days from the motion filing.

At the hearing GGYC will either produce the CHR or produce proof that they have a second boat that is not complete and thus they cannot produce the CHR yet.

There will be argument that the newer boat cannot be THE boat GGYC named in their challenge of 2007, GGYC will say that their challenge describes THE boat in conceptual form and that in the time between the 2007 challenge and April 2009 acceptance of that challenge, DZI was built as a proof of concept and DZII, which also fits the notice of challenge dimensions is but another version of that concept. THE boat will be the better of the two. GGYC will argue that having two boats to chose from to provide the highest level of competition that is due the Cup is a practice with a long history. Even in the days of Thistle (1887?) the Challenger was considering building two boats that fit the challenge notice and coming to race with the better of the two. In 1987 DC as CoR SDYC had (IIRC) 4 boats to consider during trials before selecting THE boat they would use for the Challenge.

Two weeks after DZII hits the water the process will start again ...

GGYC will point out that the precedent has been that THE boat has not been chosen until close to the match date. They laid the groundwork for this in their filing in response to the motion to disqualify.

At some point February will get moved out ...

It is SNG's interest to NOT win the CHR battle with enough time left to keep the February date ... they have to try to win the CHR battle in a time frame that makes May or June a reasonable time for the match.
Funny in that all of them were named Stars&Stripes, but the difference back then was they were sailing 12's by mutual consent.

 

Remodel

Super Anarchist
9,916
696
None
I think the question is not so much when will the next court challenge be issued, but where.

I can see a suit filed an a Swiss court to the effect that SNG is not subject to the authority of a US court.

Can they actually win there? I don't know, but I doubt it. Still, it could drag on for months, and delay has been the SNG strategy from day 1, delay, delay, delay.

 

RHough

Super Anarchist
why would GGYC fall for that. They certainly want to keep the Feb dates, so any action that seriously threatens that will likely produce a CHR(probably a direct court order to produce one by ... date or be dsq). At some point they will produce one, the only reason for delay is to force SNG to commit to a location first so they can make any subsequent modifications. SNG will be sailing in July (some say) so they can observe SNG too.
Interesting thought is that if SNG wants the CHR before they launch, the launch might be delayed till the CHR is received which means that GGYC could in effect further restrict the sailing time of SNG...
GGYC wanted a match in July 2008, they didn't get it

GGYC wanted a match in October 2008, they didn't get it

The order was for March 2009, GGYC didn't get it

What makes you think they will get February 2010? GGYC is 0 for 3 so far on dates, SNG is 3-0 getting more time ...

I hate to say this but it looks like GGYC has been out lawyered since day one.

I don't want to be the one to observe that not only can't GGYC/BMWO win the Cup on the water, they can't seem to win in court either.

0-2 on the water and 0-3 in getting a date so far ...

I don't like it, but them's the facts. :angry:

 

phomchick

Super Anarchist
3,820
0
San Francisco
why would GGYC fall for that. They certainly want to keep the Feb dates, so any action that seriously threatens that will likely produce a CHR(probably a direct court order to produce one by ... date or be dsq). At some point they will produce one, the only reason for delay is to force SNG to commit to a location first so they can make any subsequent modifications. SNG will be sailing in July (some say) so they can observe SNG too.
Interesting thought is that if SNG wants the CHR before they launch, the launch might be delayed till the CHR is received which means that GGYC could in effect further restrict the sailing time of SNG...
GGYC wanted a match in July 2008, they didn't get it

GGYC wanted a match in October 2008, they didn't get it

The order was for March 2009, GGYC didn't get it

What makes you think they will get February 2010? GGYC is 0 for 3 so far on dates, SNG is 3-0 getting more time ...

I hate to say this but it looks like GGYC has been out lawyered since day one.

I don't want to be the one to observe that not only can't GGYC/BMWO win the Cup on the water, they can't seem to win in court either.

0-2 on the water and 0-3 in getting a date so far ...

I don't like it, but them's the facts. :angry:
It's interesting to me that GGYC didn't argue that "reinstating" the order of the Supreme Court meant going back to the state of the order when the Appellate Division ruled and upset everything. That is, with about two of the ten months past and eight months remaining. This implies that they may have development programs under way that could not be completed by December. DZ II?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peelman

Super Anarchist
6,050
0
Vancouver, BC
why would GGYC fall for that. They certainly want to keep the Feb dates, so any action that seriously threatens that will likely produce a CHR(probably a direct court order to produce one by ... date or be dsq). At some point they will produce one, the only reason for delay is to force SNG to commit to a location first so they can make any subsequent modifications. SNG will be sailing in July (some say) so they can observe SNG too.
Interesting thought is that if SNG wants the CHR before they launch, the launch might be delayed till the CHR is received which means that GGYC could in effect further restrict the sailing time of SNG...
GGYC wanted a match in July 2008, they didn't get it

GGYC wanted a match in October 2008, they didn't get it

The order was for March 2009, GGYC didn't get it

What makes you think they will get February 2010? GGYC is 0 for 3 so far on dates, SNG is 3-0 getting more time ...

I hate to say this but it looks like GGYC has been out lawyered since day one.

I don't want to be the one to observe that not only can't GGYC/BMWO win the Cup on the water, they can't seem to win in court either.

0-2 on the water and 0-3 in getting a date so far ...

I don't like it, but them's the facts. :angry:
Looking a delaying the event, SNG has won in court for sure but I would think PR wise goes to GGYC

Best thing the courts could have done was say burn the boats & start over OR do a MC w/ the 20 other teams w/ GGYC as the CoR.

 

Wandering Geo

Super Anarchist
1,455
64
I've been thinking that each time we go through the courts, that we are back on track, only to have it derailed again. I'm gun shy. I reckon we'll be back here in August for sure, maybe before. What to you think?
Agree. When SNG nominates a Swiss lake as the venue.

 

phomchick

Super Anarchist
3,820
0
San Francisco
I've been thinking that each time we go through the courts, that we are back on track, only to have it derailed again. I'm gun shy. I reckon we'll be back here in August for sure, maybe before. What to you think?
Agree. When SNG nominates a Swiss lake as the venue.
That would be a truly fun one for SNG to try.
They also mentioned the "Black Sea" in their letter to GGYC. I wonder if that is truly "an arm of the sea"? I don't think so.

 

RHough

Super Anarchist
The order said anywhere SNG wants. What has the DoG got to do with it now?
Anywhere that SNG wants that complies with the DoG restrictions on no consent courses ...

Ocean, practicable for vessels of 22 ft draught, free of headlands ...

I will argue that SNG has the option of anywhere, not just Valencia or anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

 
Top