Having

This is getting to be very tiresome. 

We have explained this before. 

Even Cory Friedman, Esq. struggles with this, as do the lawyers at Latham & Watkins. But 'having' has wormed its corrupt way into the proceedings, and there it sticks. Everyone is trying to eradicate it.

We are only going to do this one more time.

If you want to know where we're coming from, click here.

Having was, and still is a red herring. In fact, it's now a big, fat stinking red herring, stuck in the bilges of the complaints and briefs of the Courts of New York, unable to be removed or eradicated, filling the world with reeking odors.

Having queered the pitch.

Having was just a word for George Schuyler, author of the Deed of Gift of the America's Cup.

Whatever he wrote (and he authored his quaint phrase for a reason), what he meant was: "having an open water course on the sea for its annual regatta."

His ancient, stately phrasing was designed to place a special emphasis on "an open water course on the sea", in order to deter a Canadian would-be challenger who sailed in cold water waters. 

Apparently, the Canuck was a challenger too coarse or too commonplace for the salt water sailors of America's Cup.

As we said earlier, the meat of the matter is "its annual regatta".

'Having' is about the present. No question. Do you have an annual regatta? Meaning now.

'Its annual regatta' is about your annual regatta -- and 'its' assumes you have one. Do you have one?

Just read Schuyler's sentence, grab Club Náutico Español de Vela (CNEV) by the throat, and ask the simple question:

Do you have an annual regatta? 

If you are CNEV, on the day the question was asked, your answer is no.

That's it.

That's all he wrote.