The AC 37 has started, news and rumours

[strider470]

Mate, I'm about as close to a lawyer as I am a billionaire.

However whenever I see some shit on the news, they seem to be always on about precedent.

I don't personally understand it cos if one total fuckhead judge makes the wrong decision, it seems to tie the hands of all subsequent judges.

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed

 

[JJD]

Wow, 13 pages, a frenzy of outraged indignation over something that hasn't even been decided yet?

This must set some new kind of SA record??!

(... probably not :wacko: )

Exactly Weta. 
People on here ecstatic we won the cup, but bitching about how GD managed it. 
some pricks can’t even enjoy the moment. 
 

see ya next cup. 
 

 

[JJD]

Doesn't matter Kiwing.

By all means threaten the Government with the Isle of Wight or even go and have the race, I'm not especially annoyed about that.

But when you fuck with the cup in a manner that would make Ernie proud, thats where I get off the ETNZ bus.

Like I said, fuck of then. 

 

[IPLore]

This is all a waste of time because RYS and RNZYC are going to agree terms of AC37 by mutual consent.  There is no animosity here and both sides seem interested in a smooth progression to AC37.  There is no hint of a DoG match here or a lawsuit.

They have already agreed that the class of yacht for AC37 is the AC75.

We now patiently wait for further details.

 

[jaysper]

Like I said, fuck of then. 

Waaaaahhhh Waaaah! Waaaah!

Want me to call you a Waaaaahmbulance? LOL!

 

[Rennmaus]

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed

The supreme court will not change a decision of the supreme court. If I understand precedent law correctly (our system is different too), to make Judge Kornreich's decision a precedent, the next case needs to be very similar. Means, if it's not a safety concern, "no engine allowed" might work. But maybe that was the original sin.

 

[accnick]

A defence doesn't have to be expensive. They could pick an existing class like tp52s out imoca60 where many designs already exist.

They could do it in plywood optis by mutual consent!

You can't MC the minimum LWL requirements. That took an amendment to the DoG in 1956.

 

[strider470]

Waaaaahhhh Waaaah! Waaaah!

Want me to call you a Waaaaahmbulance? LOL!

Does fuck off require the double f as per the DoG, to be declared a proper insult?

 

[porthos]

Because Judge Kornreich believed Ernie's lawyer that the engine is a safety measure. She regretted the decision afterwards (no, I have no link, it was a statement in a private conversation).
 

However presumably this would mean a precedent has been set. @porthos?

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

 

[accnick]

As long as the batteries do not directly propel the boat (ie a battery driven motor) the DoG does not prohibit batteries or winches or crew etc. The two requirements are that the vessel shall be propelled by sails and built in the country of the challenge.  I do not believe these are "conditions of the match" but are conditions of the gift.

I must also meet the LWL requirements in the DoG.

 

[Blitzkrieg9]

I don't personally understand it cos if one total fuckhead judge makes the wrong decision, it seems to tie the hands of all subsequent judges.

That sums it up nicely. Its flawed, but it works well too. There is consistency in the application of the law in USA.  We have two systems 1) written law (that the legislature codifies) and 2) case law that the judiciary, well, adjudicates.  Once a precedent has been set, it becomes law. It can be changed but is difficult to do so. 

 

[porthos]

But what if a precedent is wrong? (our legal system works totally different)

It's a tad more complicated than that and nowhere near as scary as you may think it is. We have a hierarchical court system with trial courts at the bottom, appellate courts in the middle, and the supreme court of the state (they may call it something else but there is always one top court) at the top.  A decision by a trial court judge (such as J. Kornreich) is almost never binding beyond the case in which the ruling is made. In other words, a different trial court isn't bound by what a previous trial court did. Now, the trial court may find what the prior trial court decided to be persuasive and a good idea, but it wouldn't be binding. 

Trial courts always have to follow the precedent (prior opinions) of the courts of appeal and the supreme court. 

In all of that, there are ample opportunities to either overturn a prior decision by a trial court or distinguish it as involving different facts such that it doesn't apply.

 

[Blitzkrieg9]

If I am not mistaken. the supreme court can change that, but I understand less of legal stuff than of AC boats, so not much indeed

Any court in the USA can change case law. You just need some pretty good justification to do so. Without compelling reason, the law remains the same. 

The Federal Supreme Court in the USA only has one authority (as established by Marbury v. Madison, i believe) and that is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. That's it.

 

[dhebbs]

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

 

[Rennmaus]

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

Thanks for looking that up.

 

[Blitzkrieg9]

The supreme court will not change a decision of the supreme court.

Ahem.  Yes. Yes they will. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

 

[IPLore]

I must also meet the LWL requirements in the DoG.

Possibly. 

The NYSC decided that the paragraph describing the challenging club and a vessel propelled by sails built in the country of the challenger/defender could not be amended by mutual consent. (GGYC vs SNG)

The Spanish shell club and its challenge were not allowed.

The dimensions of the vessel come in a later paragraph.  Not sure if they comprise rules and regulations of the match which could be amended by mutual consent. I doubt Defemder and CoR would want to take the risk of going outside those specs, so when NYC wanted to go to 12 meters, it asked the court to amend the dimensions first.

 

[IPLore]

I went back and read J. Kornreich's relevant decision (I think). She allowed the engine for trimming sails because "[t]he Deed docs not, however, contain any restrictions on ballast or design features regarding [motorized] trimming the sails. These features are therefore permitted because they are not prohibited by the language of the Deed." (2009 NY Slip Op 31722(U) .)  GGYC also tried to claim that SNG improperly changed its rules (to include motorized trimming of sails). J. Kornreich also denied that saying: "The court will not read this provision to require that the defending organization is precluded from changing its rules after the Notice of Challenge has been issued. There is no such limiting language in the Deed."

So she allowed the smokers to trim the sails because the Deed only requires that the vessels be powered by the wind and has no restrictions on how you trim sails. 

What a ridiculous fight that was . They fought over location, and sails and engines etc.   It illustrates how destructive a DoG match can be.

 

[strider470]

Put yourself in Grant Dalton's shoes.  He has to raise a LOT of money.  Again.  And this time airlines like Emirates are broke.  What are you going to do?

So if someone offers a huge bucket of money to have a quick race (Isle of Wight), followed by a 'normal' series afterwards (the two events they have fixed the AC75 for), in NZ, and that made all your funding problems disappear, you'd be mad not to find some way to pull that off.  Wouldn't you? 

Then in a couple of cycles, Alinghi wins the Cup, chose Club Náutico Español de Vela as COR (which in the mean time became DoG compliant) for a DoG Match, and it's xTNZ's turn to jump an edition... what is going to happen?

This is going to become a very dangerous precedent for the future of the AC.

 

[Rennmaus]

Possibly. 

The NYSC decided that the paragraph describing the challenging club and a vessel propelled by sails built in the country of the challenger/defender could not be amended by mutual consent. (GGYC vs SNG)

The Spanish shell club and its challenge were not allowed.

The dimensions of the vessel come in a later paragraph.  Not sure if they comprise rules and regulations of the match which could be amended by mutual consent. I doubt Defemder and CoR would want to take the risk of going outside those specs, so when NYC wanted to go to 12 meters, it asked the court to amend the dimensions first.

This is again a question of the sections in the Deed. IIRC the LWL is not MCable. You're right, that's why it was changed by a Deed change.