CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > Community > Community
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Community Catch all category for CrossFit community discussion.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2012, 11:02 PM   #361
Justin McCallon
Member Justin McCallon is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 551
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

I just read Dale's post. Thanks for writing that out.

Pretty interesting twist in thay the shares are still owned jointly. I thought the judge had given 50% to both parties already. Should be an interesting decision from the divorce court on this one. I'd feel more confident about representing Greg. Good luck.
__________________
My Workout Log
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 01:09 AM   #362
Aushion Chatman
Affiliate Aushion Chatman is offline
 
Aushion Chatman's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 3,342
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Thanks for your post Jeff and Mikki...I hope you both know how much I respect your family!

You two having a bad feeling about Anthos speaks VOLUMES!!!
__________________
My Youtube Channel
CFSD Yelp
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 09:42 AM   #363
Darrell E. White
Member Darrell E. White is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: bay village  OH
Posts: 955
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

I am a creature of the Main Page of CrossFit.com. For most of my time here I've been a member of the "cyber-gym" of athletes who post on the comments section there. Here is what I wrote there today:

"Alarm, fires, and firefighters. "Are they real fires? Or are people just reacting to something? Just because there's an alarm going doesn't mean it's a fire. And I think that people are confusing the two." --Chris Rock.

I'm always looking for the vocabulary to understand difficult concepts, to work my way through hairy situations. This was helpful.

Someone started a fire. In their heart of hearts perhaps they thought this was good. A cooking fire to fuel the growth of those present. A bigger fire, perhaps, to keep a bigger group warm. I'd like to believe this. I want to believe this. I'm need to believe this. Fire is powerful, and a purposeless fire set upon the landscape destroys all within its path. I can understand a fire STARTED, one that was put in the wrong place perhaps, with all control lost. I can't understand a fire that was SET, and so I choose to believe this was not so.

Alarms have been set off by this fire. Is it real? Are we simply reacting to the presence of the fire? Reacting too much? Too soon? I don't think so. I don't think that either we, the folks watching, or the firefighters, are over-reacting. The alarms this time are real. A fire has been started, for whatever reason, and it will neither feed nor bring warmth to those who are gathered. This fire will destroy the landscape if it marches unopposed.

The firefighters have been alerted. They have heard the alarm, indeed saw the fire well before the rest of us were aware it had even started. They are us, just like we know the firefighters we watch battle the wildfires out west are us. They are protecting us, after all, and we get this even if we are watching from afar.

Was the alarm too loud? Too soon? Does it really matter? The fire is raging in the wrong place for the wrong reason. It threatens destruction if allowed to burn. Fires are easier to fight if caught early, and fewer firefighters are hurt in the process. Why was the fire started? That part confuses me. I am saddened by the fire itself, saddened by my confusion about its origin. But unlike Chris Rock there is no doubt that there is a real fire behind that alarm.

So I am not confused at all right now. I stand with the firefighters. They are us. They are me. I stand with the leader of the firefighters. I stand with Coach.

He is one of us."

--bingo
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 10:42 AM   #364
Jeff Strauss
Member Jeff Strauss is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Studio City  Ca
Posts: 15
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Davenport View Post
I'm guessing that the VC folks would approve the purchase of a $700k plane, given the amount of travel Mr. Glassman does. Maybe Anthos is an improvement over the ex-wife, who has sued over such an acquisition.

Safe for work:

http://anthosandcrossfit.blogspot.com/

Might this also explain why Mrs. Glassman is inclined to accept Anthos' cash offer? HQ was allegedly having difficulties financing a $700,000 plane . . . .how would she have any confidence that HQ could afford payments to her in excess of $20M?
So, I don't see what the big deal is. Either someone is blatantly misrepresenting the facts, or Anthos' involvement will not affect affiliates or day-to-day operations of CrossFit. Am I missing something here?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 11:42 AM   #365
Russell Berger
CrossFit Staff Russell Berger is offline
 
Russell Berger's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wisniewski View Post
You are correct Mr. Davenport. FRE 408 only applies to what happens in a federal court filing or during a federal court proceeding (as an aside, Mrs. Glassman's complaint was filed in DE state chancery court, not federal and there does not seem to be any federal court action filed so FRE 408 is inapplicable). People not familiar with the rules of evidence frequently cite 408 (and similar state rules of evidence) in an attempt to confuse/mislead people in an attempt to avoid making something public when they do not have a legitimate reason for not doing so.

David, you are *implying that my use of ROE 408 is to intentionally mislead or cover up some lack of evidence. There is a word for that- you're calling me a liar.*

I'm going to refrain from getting into a debate in someone else's area of expertise, so I'll let Dale answer you on this. My personal motive is simple- I am not going to do anything that could jeopardize our chances of winning in court. The second our offer to Lauren is either a public filing, or we feel that it won't effect our claims to release it, you will see it. Then you can apologize for assuming that me not bowing to the demands of a couple of Internet trolls with questionably authentic names/profiles makes me a liar.*
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 12:08 PM   #366
Thomas Davenport
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Berger View Post
David, you are *implying that my use of ROE 408 is to intentionally mislead or cover up some lack of evidence. There is a word for that- you're calling me a liar.*

I'm going to refrain from getting into a debate in someone else's area of expertise, so I'll let Dale answer you on this. My personal motive is simple- I am not going to do anything that could jeopardize our chances of winning in court. The second our offer to Lauren is either a public filing, or we feel that it won't effect our claims to release it, you will see it. Then you can apologize for assuming that me not bowing to the demands of a couple of Internet trolls with questionably authentic names/profiles makes me a liar.*
Oh I don't know that David is calling you a liar. I'm guessing you have been advised by higher ups to keep the offer confidential, other than to tell folks it is better than Anthos'. I'm guessing you've been told the rule of evidence you cited prevents disclosure of the offer. But whoever told you that is incorrect. Delaware's rules of evidence mirror the federal rules you cited. Here is Delaware's version:

"Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution." [Delaware Rules of Evidence, Rule 408.]

Bottom line: The rationale you have cited for refusing to substantiate the claim that HQ's offer to Mrs. Glassman is better than Anthos' is simply not true, suggesting it is born of ignorance (you're not a lawyer, so probably don't know any better) or an intention to mislead. HQ may be other good reasons to withhold that offer (e.g., maybe the offer itself contains highly confidential financial information). But Rule 408 is not one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 01:56 PM   #367
Russell Berger
CrossFit Staff Russell Berger is offline
 
Russell Berger's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 92
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Davenport View Post
Oh I don't know that David is calling you a liar. I'm guessing you have been advised by higher ups to keep the offer confidential, other than to tell folks it is better than Anthos'. I'm guessing you've been told the rule of evidence you cited prevents disclosure of the offer. But whoever told you that is incorrect. Delaware's rules of evidence mirror the federal rules you cited. Here is Delaware's version:

"Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution." [Delaware Rules of Evidence, Rule 408.]

Bottom line: The rationale you have cited for refusing to substantiate the claim that HQ's offer to Mrs. Glassman is better than Anthos' is simply not true, suggesting it is born of ignorance (you're not a lawyer, so probably don't know any better) or an intention to mislead. HQ may be other good reasons to withhold that offer (e.g., maybe the offer itself contains highly confidential financial information). But Rule 408 is not one.
David's implication was loud and clear.

ROE 408 relates to admissibility of evidence,

( http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx...URR&SizeDisp=7) WFS

...which means the offer in question is potential evidence in our upcoming court decision, we have every reason to avoid dragging this out in a messy public forum. If you don't like this rationale or the way I explained it , fine. I'm not a lawyer so my feelings really aren't hurt either way.

As weve said a number of times, these documents will be publicly available soon. Until then, we have no good reason to turn potentially admissible evidence into a public spectacle just to satisfy the curiosity of a couple impatient skeptics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 02:05 PM   #368
Dale F. Saran
CrossFit Staff Dale F. Saran is offline
 
Dale F. Saran's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Westerly  RI
Posts: 559
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wisniewski View Post
You are correct Mr. Davenport. FRE 408 only applies to what happens in a federal court filing or during a federal court proceeding (as an aside, Mrs. Glassman's complaint was filed in DE state chancery court, not federal and there does not seem to be any federal court action filed so FRE 408 is inapplicable). People not familiar with the rules of evidence frequently cite 408 (and similar state rules of evidence) in an attempt to confuse/mislead people in an attempt to avoid making something public when they do not have a legitimate reason for not doing so.
Ah, it must be nice to be as smart as you. This is sophistry - it's not whether it's the federal rule that matters, it's whether or not 408 (in whatever state or federal form it takes) applies. Russell used my shorthand answer to him in a question about this, so the fault is mine. The divorce proceedings are in Arizona, so the applicable rule would be Arizona's RE. (I used FRE in my email as a shorthand in our conversation). I was being succinct and didn't realize we would be called liars over it.

But here's the rub for those who think this is an attempt at obfuscation - there is (as I have already posted) a dispute between husband and wife, who are also shareholders, and as the company's lawyer, I owe EACH of them the same duty (as has also been previously mentioned). Additionally, I owe the company a duty, as well (see whichever state version of the Model RPC apply, 1.13, as well as 1.7 and 1.8). Thus, I am not in a position to disclose anything because one or the other party may or may NOT want to disclose those matters in a subsequent proceeding, and I can't recommend that either one do either in contravention of the other's rights. Hence the "408 conundrum" - for ME. It's not an intent to obfuscate, it's a reflection of the schizophrenic nature of proceedings such as this.

If either party wants to personally disclose the terms in the context of the divorce (and forfeit any possible future 408 benefits), they're welcome to do so. Others have pointed out - and some others may - what the exact numbers were. Then we get into the tax implications of an outside offer, as opposed to a property settlement in the context of a divorce. Even neutral accountants might disagree about the exact equivalencies of offers, but no one from CF need be embarrassed about ever being called cheap.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 02:14 PM   #369
Daniel Wheeler
Member Daniel Wheeler is offline
 
Daniel Wheeler's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston  TX
Posts: 788
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Berger View Post
we have every reason to avoid dragging this out in a messy public forum.
I know right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 02:39 PM   #370
Jeff Enge
Banned Jeff Enge is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Collinsville  IL
Posts: 5,542
Re: Stop Anthos from Taking over CrossFit

Ah, this reminds me of some discussions my company has been having between lawyers, executives (in this case, HQ staff) and operational employees (in this case, affiliate owners) of different companies. Nobody really knows what anybody else is saying because they all speak a different vocabulary.

The difference is, in my opinion it was a mistake in this case to take proceedings past the affiliate level in what appears to be their legal infancy and even more a mistake to do so in a public internet forum in which everything is misconstrued even further because of the natural language barriers of this type of communication (no tone, non-instantaneous reply, etc).

It's all well and good to "throw your support in with Coach" or what have you, but if I were an affiliate owner or had any other kind of say, I would be hesitant to make such a commitment until I knew ALL of the facts and situation.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taking Heat For Crossfit Chris Vaughn Starting 26 05-15-2011 02:30 PM
One Stop Shopping/CrossFit Starter Package Ahmik Jones Equipment 1 05-14-2007 01:59 PM
Taking a break from crossfit Chris Sinagoga Injuries 9 09-15-2006 04:13 PM
Ruthless/Crossfit in Virginia is taking over the local press! Irena Bradley Community 4 07-30-2006 03:47 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.