• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Whatever happened to the Gibson Raid outcome?

#84
beggar98 said:
It's a little different than that. To stick with your analogy, it's as if you boarded a plane and declared you had one type of scorpion, a legal one. But in reality you had a different type of scorpion, one that was not legal.

You either:

1. Made a mistake on your paperwork. The general attitude in this case is that mistakes happen. No one wants to send anyone to jail over a typo.
2. Lied on your paperwork. If the government can prove this, charges will most likely be filed.

Either way, you're not getting your scorpion back.
Click to expand...

This cleared most of the thread up for me, and it even makes sense!
 
#88
Here is another interesting application of the Lacey Act.

Seafood importer does time for importing lobsters from Honduras in the wrong type of container.... Sounds fishy (no pun intended) but I double checked this one and it appears to be the case...

Honduras filed a brief on the defendants behalf - saying they broke no laws, but the court handed down a conviction.

Jailing the Innocent by Paul Craig Roberts
 
#89
GtenderG said:
Here is another interesting application of the Lacey Act.

Seafood importer does time for importing lobsters from Honduras in the wrong type of container.... Sounds fishy (no pun intended) but I double checked this one and it appears to be the case...

Honduras filed a brief on the defendants behalf - saying they broke no laws, but the court handed down a conviction.

Jailing the Innocent by Paul Craig Roberts
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of the Lacy Act and when I initially read about this case I looked at it as a prime example of government overreach. Now after spending a good deal of time reading about this case I'm not so sure.

First the "wrong type of container" is true enough. They were exported in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes which seems absurd requirement until you look at the intent of that regulation. Honduras wants to discourage bulk export of lobsters from their waters and the cardboard box requirement was apparently meant to foster that end - maybe because it's more labor intensive to pack them that way. In that light - and considering that the impounded shipment was something like 35 tons of lobster tails the shipping container argument is much less absurd sounding.

Secondly they were also charged with harvesting lobsters with tails less than 5.5 inches (i.e. immature lobsters) and egg bearing females, both of which violate Honduran regulations (many Carribean states and Florida have similar regulations and their intent is to insure sustainability). The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in denying the defendants' appeal stated that a "significant" number of lobsters were illegal. I read in other places that the number was 10%.

Finally Honduran law demands that lobsters be "processed" prior to export. These weren't.

Apparently when Lacy Act violations are investigated the first thing that happens is that the goverment determines what laws, if any, were violated. Representatives of the Honduran government - from their Department of Agriculture and the agency charged with enforcing Honduran environmental law -
provided written statements and certified copies of their laws and regulations supporting the fact that the defendants violated their laws. The US Court held a hearing on foreign law and came to the conclusion, based on what they got from the Honduran goverment, that Honduran laws were violated.

After the conviction, one of the defendants, who is a Honduran citizen, got one of the laws overturned and another was invalidated. Based on that the defendants appealed their conviction and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions based on the fact that what matters is the laws that are in effect at the time in question and that invalidating the law after the fact is not enough to reverse a conviction. The appeals court also stated that because a foreign government changes its mind about whether a law was violated after a conviction does not invalidate a prior conviction. They're worried about having to go back and re-interpret a country's law every time there's a shift in the political winds in that country. Honduras steadfastly maintained that their laws were broken throughout the course of the trial and that's all that matters.

For anyone who wants to read it the 11th Circuit's opinion is available at [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. It's written in plain English and, like most court opinions, offers interesting insight into how judges go about applying the law.
 
#90
GtenderG said:
Here is another interesting application of the Lacey Act.

Seafood importer does time for importing lobsters from Honduras in the wrong type of container.... Sounds fishy (no pun intended) but I double checked this one and it appears to be the case...

Honduras filed a brief on the defendants behalf - saying they broke no laws, but the court handed down a conviction.

Jailing the Innocent by Paul Craig Roberts
Click to expand...


"An anti-state/pro-market site"

Yeah, surely no bias to be found there...
 
#91
beggar98 said:
It's a little different than that. To stick with your analogy, it's as if you boarded a plane and declared you had one type of scorpion, a legal one. But in reality you had a different type of scorpion, one that was not legal.

You either:

1. Made a mistake on your paperwork. The general attitude in this case is that mistakes happen. No one wants to send anyone to jail over a typo.
2. Lied on your paperwork. If the government can prove this, charges will most likely be filed.

Either way, you're not getting your scorpion back.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll stick a tag that says "Made Possible in Part by Beggar98" on all my scorpion wood basses from now on ;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back