Thanks to whoever recap-ed this document:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988/gov.uscourts.ctd.99988.64.0.pdf
we know that the trial date (if a trial actually happens) won't be before October 2014. That's 15 months from now.
I think this will really damage the class. Nobody in their right mind will be buying a new Laser/Kirby Sailboat as either could become worthless depending on the outcome of the court case (and it is quite a lot of money for many to risk). And then any decision gets very close to the next Olympics and what is there is then no such thing as a "Laser" ? - ISAF will be looking pretty daft then.
So, I might rejoin the ILCA and stand for President next elections with the policy of finding an urgent compromise and solution with Kirby. Revoke the recent rule change and open immediate discussions with Kirby to find a solution. Can't be hard as I believe we would both have identical aims and would both be looking for the same outcome.
Beggars belief that ISAF/ILCA cannot resolve this without the need to go through all this court stuff. Makes one wonder what their real agendas might be.
Ian
What will damage the class is the constant negativity and the speculation. What will get the class through this is the class members supporting the ILCA officers, good people, in their tireless efforts to sort this all out, and the class members working at the grassroots level to promote the class, rather than talking it down all the time.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Bruce,
You are mischaracterising my response to your email of the other day.
You are deliberately trying to create a situation that does not exist and you are playing on
words.
All your suggestions in your email are rejected and without basis.
You are requested to refrain from direct communication with me or any of the LP team.
Any future communication will not be replied to and the lack of reply to any future
communication does not consitute any agreement with your statements, now or in the
future.
Any communication from you should be directed to our counsel and to be formal in
nature.
Please try to conduct yourself in a professional manner and according to the request
herein.
With thanks,
Farzad
The boats won't become worthless - it isn't in any party's interest for that to happen, so why would it?
They are not in any particular order which suggests that one is a direct copy of the other. But how did this happen? I see three possibilities:
1. Kirby created the list and used the fed it to the blog owner to publish it without it appearing to come from him.
2. Kirby's "extensive" research (page 12 of the motion) consisted of reading the blog page.
3. There is an unknown source that both obtained the list from.
Based on my limited experience of following a couple of lawsuits, it is my opinion that people who trumpet the strength of their case and use third parties to anonymously put out information that doesn't look good for the other side actually have a weak case.I can't see too much of an issue. When I do some research for marketing reports, I may collect data from a variety of sources - including Blogs if their research seems good - then use that as a starting point - check the validity of the data etc. It would seem that the research in the Blog was good - as I can't see any changes after a cursory look. What that means is that the writer of Kirby's document simply agrees with the research in the Blog - quite a compliment to Pam - unless it came from a common source.
I can't see too much of an issue. When I do some research for marketing reports, I may collect data from a variety of sources - including Blogs if their research seems good - then use that as a starting point - check the validity of the data etc. It would seem that the research in the Blog was good - as I can't see any changes after a cursory look. What that means is that the writer of Kirby's document simply agrees with the research in the Blog - quite a compliment to Pam - unless it came from a common source.
Thanks Gantt. My research and my post. I've gladly shared the data with Kirby, his attorney, the ILCA, Sailing Anarchy, the IRS and the FBI. And If I can find the time, I have more research to do to grab the interest of the Guardian who have a ton of leaked documents from offshore accounts. Rastegar's trail stopped in the BVIs.
Thanks Gantt. My research and my post. I've gladly shared the data with Kirby, his attorney, the ILCA, Sailing Anarchy, the IRS and the FBI. And If I can find the time, I have more research to do to grab the interest of the Guardian who have a ton of leaked documents from offshore accounts. Rastegar's trail stopped in the BVIs.
Based on my limited experience of following a couple of lawsuits, it is my opinion that people who trumpet the strength of their case and use third parties to anonymously put out information that doesn't look good for the other side actually have a weak case.
Your comment appears to ignore my option 1.
I suspect that, rather than wanting someone to build "boats", the ICLA want someone to build "Lasers". At the moment, the only organization that has the rights to do this in NA and Europe are Rastegar's companies. That's probably why the ICLA seems to have given tacit support to LPE and QM.
I have absolutely no knowledge of this, but I suspect that Kirby's implication that he is the sole creator of the builder's manual is an exaggeration -- it would seem likely that the original builders would be heavily involved in developing the specifications and techniques to build a boat.
So you suspect that Rategar's business and/or tax arrangements are not 100% proper?
He has given everyone reason to suspect. Back in 2012 in connection with the Maclaren bankruptcy, Alice Hines from the Huffington Post writes:
In March, Rastegar's bankruptcy lawyers claimed that Maclaren USA had no knowledge of the ownership of Maclaren Hong Kong Limited. Bankruptcy trustee Napolitano disputed the claim in a court document filed April 24, writing that she believed the U.S. company possessed "knowledge sufficient to allow complete responses to her requests for information." Maclaren USA owes $13.1 million to Maclaren Hong Kong Limited, according to bankruptcy filings.
Rastegar, subpoenaed in New York on May 10, testified that both Maclaren Hong Kong Limited and Maclaren Distribution Limited (the parent company of Maclaren Europe Limited) are owned by his mother and sister.
I wonder what his ultimate goal is? Wear Kirby down and then buy out Kirby's rights?
And I note that Kirby has not terminated the agreement with LP Japan.