Bully Florida Marine Patrol (FWC) Gives Me a Citation.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
You're gonna LOVE this one. Friday afternoon, several boats in the
harbor got a visit from a boarding party consisting of one FWC (Fish and
Wildlife Commission aka Marine Patrol) officer and one Coast Guard
officer.
The Coast Guard officer did a safety inspection which, of course, I
passed with flying colors. He was a nice guy. Polite, knowlegeable and
efficient.
The FWC officer did, or attempted to do his version of a MSD check. He
came aboard and looked at my toilet then asked to see that the overboard
discharge was secured (locked) so I showed him the ball valve with the
handle in the closed position with a padlock securing it to an eye bolt
fastened to the bulkhead. He seemed satisfied with that.
Then he got out a dye tablet and wanted to flush the toilet while the
FWC boat with another FWC officer at the helm hovered near my boat. The
idea was to flush the toilet and have the dye go into the holding tank
but not overboard to make sure I didn't have a "cheater" overboard
discharge or some such, I suppose, as we are in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary which is one of the three or four no-discharge
zones in Florida. I told him I had a type 1, USCG approve MSD installed
and pointed out the LectraSan control panel and said the ball valve was
closed because it was illegal to discharge even treated waste in the
Sanctuary waters so he could not flush any dye into it. I told him it
was not operable without the discharge valve being open so I don't use
it while in Sanctuary waters. He could easily see dust and cat hair in
the toilet and the water intake ball valve closed as well.
He got all in a huff and told me I was required to have a holding tank.
I told him that was not correct. He said it WAS correct that I had to
have a working holding tank he could flush dye into. I told him he was
wrong in that state statutes said I could have either a type 1, type 2,
or type 3 MSD connected to my permanently installed toilet. I futher
told him that the only way to resolve the disagreement was for him to
write me a citation so a judge could decide. He left my boat, went to
his boat and commenced writing me a citation
This is what he cited me for: Violation of Chapter 327.53 (1) of the
Florida Statutes and in the comments section of the citation he wrote
"No type III functioning MSD aboard"
Hmmmmm!
This is the language of that particular statute and paragraph taken from
the Florida Sunshine official site 2011 statutes.
327.53 Marine sanitation.—
(1) Every vessel 26 feet or more in length which has an enclosed cabin
with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States Coast
Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
This is what he claims I was not in compliance with. HUH?
Can the fellow even read English? Nowhere does it state my vessel must
have a holding tank. Rather, it states my vessel which has a permanently
installed toilet may have either a type 1, 2, or 3 MSD.
Where does it say that, you ask?
This involves statutory definitions. The definition of 'marine
sanitation device' is as follows:
327.02 Florida Statutes
(21) “Marine sanitation device” means any equipment other than a toilet,
for installation on board a vessel, which is designed to receive,
retain, treat, or discharge sewage, and any process to treat such
sewage. Marine sanitation device Types I, II, and III shall be defined
as provided in 33 C.F.R. part 159.
In other words, the Florida Statute defers to the Code of Federal
Relations' definition of a marine sanitation device which is:
33 C.F.R. part 159
Type I marine sanitation device means a device that, under the test
conditions described in §§159.123 and 159.125, produces an effluent
having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 1,000 per 100
milliliters and no visible floating solids.
Type II marine sanitation device means a device that, under the test
conditions described in §§159.126 and 159.126a, produces an effluent
having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100
milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per
liter.
Type III marine sanitation device means a device that is designed to
prevent the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any
waste derived from sewage.
Note the very interesting legal definition of a type III MSD. Does it
say anything about a holding tank? Negative! It surely does include a
holding tank but it could include other things as well. A porta-potti is
a type 3 as is a composting toilet as is an incinerating toilet. Is a
locked-closed ball valve on the discharge thru-hull a type 3 MSD? Sounds
to me like it meets the definition.
But, that's an aside. The point is the statute I was cited for being in
violation of states my toilet must be connected to the appropriate MSD
and since I'm no houseboat, by defintion, because I sail and travel
about in my fine yacht all three types of MSD's are appropriate for my
vessel.
327.02
(13) “Houseboat” means any vessel which is used primarily as a residence
for a minimum of 21 days during any 30-day period, in a county of this
state, and this residential use of the vessel is to the preclusion (make
impossible or prevent, my parenthesis) of the use of the vessel as a
means of transportation.
Since I frequently use my boat as a means of transportation I'm not a
houseboat. Nothing precludes traveling in my boat.
What was this FWC officer thinking other than he could get away with
being a bully because I was some ignorant PUTZ?
Well, tomorrow I'm going to the courthouse and request my day in court.
I will not pay the 73 dollar fine. It will probably be a couple or
three months before my hearing is held as there is a backlog in the
court. But, it looks to me to be a slam-dunk victory for me. I'm
thinking the FWC officer will not even show.
If he shows and WHEN I win, I'm planning to get a transcript of the
court proceedings and I will write to Southwinds Magazine about my
experience and encourage anybody else who's been victimized by wrongful,
bully, and/or ignorant enforcement by the FWC to take them to court and
I shall encourage them to use my case precedence.
I will not abide ignorant or bullyor ignorant law enforcement officers
of any kind. I will fight for my (our) rights tooth and nail. I hope
everybody else does the same.
Addendum: Here is the entire 327.53 Florida statute. I didn't include it
in its entirety above as I was not cited for all of it, just the first
paragraph.
327.53 Marine sanitation.—
(1) Every vessel 26 feet or more in length which has an enclosed cabin
with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States Coast
Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
(2) Every houseboat shall be equipped with at least one permanently
installed toilet which shall be properly connected to a United States
Coast Guard certified or labeled Type III marine sanitation device. If
the toilet is simultaneously connected to both a Type III marine
sanitation device and to another approved marine sanitation device, the
valve or other mechanism selecting between the two marine sanitation
devices shall be set to direct all sewage to the Type III marine
sanitation device and, while the vessel is on the waters of the state,
shall be locked or otherwise secured by the boat operator, so as to
prevent resetting.
(3) Every floating structure that has an enclosed living space with
berthing facilities, or working space with public access, must be
equipped with a permanently installed toilet properly connected to a
Type III marine sanitation device or permanently attached via plumbing
to shoreside sewage disposal. No structure shall be plumbed so as to
permit the discharge of sewage into the waters of the state.
(4)(a) Raw sewage shall not be discharged from any vessel, including
houseboats, or any floating structure in Florida waters. The operator of
any vessel which is plumbed so that a toilet may be flushed directly
into the water or so that a holding tank may be emptied into the water
shall, while the vessel is on the waters of the state, set the valve or
other mechanism directing the sewage so as to prevent direct discharge
and lock or otherwise secure the valve so as to prevent resetting.
(b) All waste from Type III marine sanitation devices shall be disposed
in an approved sewage pumpout facility.
(c) All waste from portable toilets shall be disposed in an approved
waste reception facility.
(5) Every vessel owner, operator, and occupant shall comply with United
States Coast Guard regulations pertaining to marine sanitation devices
and with United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations
pertaining to areas in which the discharge of sewage, treated or
untreated, is prohibited.
(6)(a) A violation of this section is a noncriminal infraction as
provided in s. 327.73. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The
owner and operator of any vessel shall be jointly and severally liable
for the civil penalty imposed pursuant to this section.
(b) All civil penalties imposed and collected pursuant to this section
shall be deposited in the Marine Resources Conservation Trust Fund and
shall be used: to implement, administer, and enforce this act; to
construct, renovate, or operate pumpout stations and waste reception
facilities; and to conduct a program to educate vessel operators about
the problem of human body waste discharges from vessels and inform them
of the location of pumpout stations and waste reception facilities.
(7) Any vessel or floating structure operated or occupied on the waters
of the state in violation of this section is declared a nuisance and a
hazard to public safety and health. The owner or operator of any vessel
or floating structure cited for violating this section shall, within 30
days following the issuance of the citation, correct the violation for
which the citation was issued or remove the vessel or floating structure
from the waters of the state. If the violation is not corrected within
the 30 days and the vessel or floating structure remains on the waters
of the state in violation of this section, law enforcement officers
charged with the enforcement of this chapter under s. 327.70 shall apply
to the appropriate court in the county in which the vessel or floating
structure is located, to order or otherwise cause the removal of such
vessel or floating structure from the waters of the state at the owner’s
expense. If the owner cannot be found or otherwise fails to pay the
removal costs, the provisions of s. 328.17 shall apply. If the proceeds
under s. 328.17 are not sufficient to pay all removal costs, funds
appropriated from the Marine Resources Conservation Trust Fund pursuant
to paragraph (6)(b) or s. 328.72(16) may be used.
***********************************
It might be well that you print a copy of it so if you are harrassed or
cited in error while anchored or underway you will be informed.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wayne B
>327.53?Marine sanitation.�
>(1)?Every vessel 26 feet or more in length which has an enclosed cabin
>with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
>equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
>may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
>toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States Coast
>Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
>
>This is what he claims I was not in compliance with. HUH?
>
>Can the fellow even read English? Nowhere does it state my vessel must
>have a holding tank. Rather, it states my vessel which has a permanently
>installed toilet may have either a type 1, 2, or 3 MSD.
>
>Where does it say that, you ask?
>
>This involves statutory definitions. The definition of 'marine
>sanitation device' is as follows:
>
>327.02 Florida Statutes
>(21)?�Marine sanitation device� means any equipment other than a toilet,
>(13)?�Houseboat� means any vessel which is used primarily as a residence
>for a minimum of 21 days during any 30-day period, in a county of this
>state, and this residential use of the vessel is to the preclusion (make
>impossible or prevent, my parenthesis) of the use of the vessel as a
>means of transportation.
>
>Since I frequently use my boat as a means of transportation I'm not a
>houseboat. Nothing precludes traveling in my boat.
>
>What was this FWC officer thinking other than he could get away with
>being a bully because I was some ignorant PUTZ?
>
>Well, tomorrow I'm going to the courthouse and request my day in court.
>I will not pay the 73 dollar fine. It will probably be a couple or
>three months before my hearing is held as there is a backlog in the
>court. But, it looks to me to be a slam-dunk victory for me. I'm
>thinking the FWC officer will not even show.
>
>If he shows and WHEN I win, I'm planning to get a transcript of the
>court proceedings and I will write to Southwinds Magazine about my
>experience and encourage anybody else who's been victimized by wrongful,
>bully, and/or ignorant enforcement by the FWC to take them to court and
>I shall encourage them to use my case precedence.
>
>I will not abide ignorant or bullyor ignorant law enforcement officers
>of any kind. I will fight for my (our) rights tooth and nail. I hope
>everybody else does the same.
>
>
>Addendum: Here is the entire 327.53 Florida statute. I didn't include it
>in its entirety above as I was not cited for all of it, just the first
>paragraph.
>
>327.53?Marine sanitation.�
>(1)?Every vessel 26 feet or more in length which has an enclosed cabin
>with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
>equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
>may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
>toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States Coast
>Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
>
>(2)?Every houseboat shall be equipped with at least one permanently
>installed toilet which shall be properly connected to a United States
>Coast Guard certified or labeled Type III marine sanitation device. If
>the toilet is simultaneously connected to both a Type III marine
>sanitation device and to another approved marine sanitation device, the
>valve or other mechanism selecting between the two marine sanitation
>devices shall be set to direct all sewage to the Type III marine
>sanitation device and, while the vessel is on the waters of the state,
>shall be locked or otherwise secured by the boat operator, so as to
>prevent resetting.
>
>(3)?Every floating structure that has an enclosed living space with
>berthing facilities, or working space with public access, must be
>equipped with a permanently installed toilet properly connected to a
>Type III marine sanitation device or permanently attached via plumbing
>to shoreside sewage disposal. No structure shall be plumbed so as to
>permit the discharge of sewage into the waters of the state.
>
>
>(4)(a)?Raw sewage shall not be discharged from any vessel, including
>houseboats, or any floating structure in Florida waters. The operator of
>any vessel which is plumbed so that a toilet may be flushed directly
>into the water or so that a holding tank may be emptied into the water
>shall, while the vessel is on the waters of the state, set the valve or
>other mechanism directing the sewage so as to prevent direct discharge
>and lock or otherwise secure the valve so as to prevent resetting.
>
>(b)?All waste from Type III marine sanitation devices shall be disposed
>in an approved sewage pumpout facility.
>
>(c)?All waste from portable toilets shall be disposed in an approved
>waste reception facility.
>
>(5)?Every vessel owner, operator, and occupant shall comply with United
>States Coast Guard regulations pertaining to marine sanitation devices
>and with United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations
>pertaining to areas in which the discharge of sewage, treated or
>untreated, is prohibited.
>
>(6)(a)?A violation of this section is a noncriminal infraction as
>provided in s. 327.73. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The
>owner and operator of any vessel shall be jointly and severally liable
>for the civil penalty imposed pursuant to this section.
>
>(b)?All civil penalties imposed and collected pursuant to this section
>shall be deposited in the Marine Resources Conservation Trust Fund and
>shall be used: to implement, administer, and enforce this act; to
>construct, renovate, or operate pumpout stations and waste reception
>facilities; and to conduct a program to educate vessel operators about
>the problem of human body waste discharges from vessels and inform them
>of the location of pumpout stations and waste reception facilities.
>
>(7)?Any vessel or floating structure operated or occupied on the waters
>of the state in violation of this section is declared a nuisance and a
>hazard to public safety and health. The owner or operator of any vessel
>or floating structure cited for violating this section shall, within 30
>days following the issuance of the citation, correct the violation for
>which the citation was issued or remove the vessel or floating structure
>from the waters of the state. If the violation is not corrected within
>the 30 days and the vessel or floating structure remains on the waters
>of the state in violation of this section, law enforcement officers
>charged with the enforcement of this chapter under s. 327.70 shall apply
>to the appropriate court in the county in which the vessel or floating
>structure is located, to order or otherwise cause the removal of such
>vessel or floating structure from the waters of the state at the owner�s
>expense. If the owner cannot be found or otherwise fails to pay the
>removal costs, the provisions of s. 328.17 shall apply. If the proceeds
>under s. 328.17 are not sufficient to pay all removal costs, funds
>appropriated from the Marine Resources Conservation Trust Fund pursuant
>to paragraph (6)(b) or s. 328.72(16) may be used.
>
> ***********************************
>
>It might be well that you print a copy of it so if you are harrassed or
>cited in error while anchored or underway you will be informed.
>
>
>Wilbur Hubbard
>
You did the right thing by refusing to remove the lock and flushing.
That would have been self incrimination and a violation of federal
law.
Be careful regarding your defense however. If you lose because of a
technicality it will make things worse for the next guy. Did you get
a yellow sheet from the Coast Guard saying that you passed their
inspection? That sheet includes an item relating to MSDs.
I strongly encourage you to find a friendly lawyer to help with your
defense. There is a complex interplay involved here between state
and federal law, and which laws take precedence.
Wayne B
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:17:11 -0400, Wayne B
><waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It might be well that you print a copy of it so if you are harrassed or
>>>cited in error while anchored or underway you will be informed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wilbur Hubbard
>>>
>>
>>You did the right thing by refusing to remove the lock and flushing.
>>That would have been self incrimination and a violation of federal
>>law.
>>
>>Be careful regarding your defense however. If you lose because of a
>>technicality it will make things worse for the next guy. Did you get
>>a yellow sheet from the Coast Guard saying that you passed their
>>inspection? That sheet includes an item relating to MSDs.
>>
>>I strongly encourage you to find a friendly lawyer to help with your
>>defense. There is a complex interplay involved here between state
>>and federal law, and which laws take precedence.
>
>The question being - If his toilet is all dusty, where has he been
>defecating?
==============
Possily ashore, possibly directly into the water which is legal
believe it or not.
He might also be able to argue that his "oaken bucket" is a portable
MSD since it would allow him to transport waste ashore. He needs a
legal professional however to sort out all of the conflicting
regulations.
It's too late now but one strategy might be to insist that the state
guy wait for USCG to complete their inspection. Since his padlocked
valve meets federal regs as I understand them, he could then argue
that federal law supercedes state, and maintain that the state guy now
lacks probable cause.for a search since his boat is also his home.
Vic Smith
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:17:11 -0400, Wayne B
><waynebatr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It might be well that you print a copy of it so if you are harrassed or
>>>cited in error while anchored or underway you will be informed.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wilbur Hubbard
>>>
>>
>>You did the right thing by refusing to remove the lock and flushing.
>>That would have been self incrimination and a violation of federal
>>law.
>>
>>Be careful regarding your defense however. If you lose because of a
>>technicality it will make things worse for the next guy. Did you get
>>a yellow sheet from the Coast Guard saying that you passed their
>>inspection? That sheet includes an item relating to MSDs.
>>
>>I strongly encourage you to find a friendly lawyer to help with your
>>defense. There is a complex interplay involved here between state
>>and federal law, and which laws take precedence.
>
>The question being - If his toilet is all dusty, where has he been
>defecating?
Cedar bucket, then tossed overboard.
The cop knew that. Simple deduction. Maybe reads usenet too.
Should at least have a little porta-potti for show.
The problem with this is even if Neal wins, he's now a target.
Real easy to spot mustard from miles away.
Time for a rename, repaint.
"Spread the Mayo." Paint to match.
--Vic
Wilbur Hubbard
news:1s57971ndi8hsrv82...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>
>
> You did the right thing by refusing to remove the lock and flushing.
> That would have been self incrimination and a violation of federal
> law.
Agreed, state and federal law, as even processed sewage from a Type I
MSD is prohibited in a no-discharge zone.
> Be careful regarding your defense however. If you lose because of a
> technicality it will make things worse for the next guy. Did you get
> a yellow sheet from the Coast Guard saying that you passed their
> inspection? That sheet includes an item relating to MSDs.
Unfortunately, in the hustle and bustle the Coast Guard boarding officer
failed to leave a copy of the safety inspection sheet. However, I have
called the CG station and left word that I'd like to have a copy of it
mailed to me. The receptionist said it should be no problem so I should
be getting that soon. I just requested a court date today at the clerk
of the court's office and they said I would be getting notice in the
mail in about four weeks of the date of the hearing. Interestingly, I
showed the MSD to the CG officer when he was aboard (he asked if he
could see it), and the locked ball valve and I got the impression that
even HE thought the FWC guy was incorrect.
> I strongly encourage you to find a friendly lawyer to help with your
> defense. There is a complex interplay involved here between state
> and federal law, and which laws take precedence.
Thanks but I can handle this on my own. The way it works in court is the
prosecution must prove that I'm in violation of the statute that I was
cited for (Chapter 327.53 (1)) and ONLY the statute I was cited for. I
must show to the judge's satisfaction that I am in compliance. This will
be easy enough to do using the legal word definitions used in Chapter
327.02.
Being that I was cited for the very statute that states I may have
installed either a type I, II, or III MSD, there is NO WAY prosecution
can prove, within the constraints of that statute, that I must have only
a type III (holding tank) installed. They have lost even before they
have started. Their only out will be for the FWC officer not to show and
I can get it dismissed or ask for a continuance which will likely be my
course of action. If the guy shows, he'll lose. Then there will be
precedence detrimental to their abusive of the statute on record. I
doubt any sensible prosecutor will allow that.
Even if they could find a Marine Sanctuary statute that said I must have
a holding tank they could not use that to defeat the legitimacy of the
State statute they cited me for. If there were two laws that contradict
each other I cannot be held responsible for adhering to both. They would
have to cite me later for being in violation of the Sanctuary statute if
any such a thing exists. . .
Besides, I have read the entire chapter in the Code of Federal
Regulations as to Marine Sanctuary regulations and nowhere in those,
either does it say I must have a holding tank.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=cc6b87a832159c7ead2fb2d2055becc9&rgn=div6&view=text&node=15:3.1.2.2.11.16&idno=15This is going to be a slam-dunk victory for me. No lawyer required. Prose will be sufficient.Wilbur Hubbard
Wayne B
<wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
This is going to be a slam-dunk victory for me. No lawyer required.
Prose will be sufficient.Wilbur Hubbard
========
You will be better off to adopt a position of guarded optimism as
opposed to wild over confidence. All the best with this and keep us
posted. From what I here the Florida FWC guys have been harassing
cruisers with this dye tablet nonsense all up and down the coast.
Wilbur Hubbard
news:4e949c3f$0$2617$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Sorry folks, the link to the CFR Sanctuary Regs got munged. Here it is
again.
Wilbur Hubbard
Guarded optimism would be sensible but I'm VERY confident. I beat the
Islamorada Chief of Police on a very similar case but involving riding
my bicycle on U.S. 1. The Chief said I could not and had to ride on the
shoulder because I was 'impeding traffic". I told him he was wrong. He
said he'd let me go if I got on the shoulder. I said no I would continue
to ride on U.S. 1. He cited me. I took him to court and, using the
statute he said I violated, I proved to the judge that the Chief was
wrong. It all hinged on the definition of 'roadway' vs. shoulder. I'm
sure the Chief knew full well what part of the highway is the 'roadway'
but I think he was counting on the fact that I did not. IOW a big bluff,
i.e. more law officer bully tactics.
So, I already have valuable experience on how to handle such cases. The
judge even said, "You did a good job on your homework - case dismissed."
The poor Chief walked out of there deflated. His attorney never said a
word. Just sat there. I think the attorney KNEW the Chief didn't have a
leg to stand on and was just hoping I was some ignorant PUTZ who
wouldn't be able to put up any kind of sound defense.
You got that right! That's why the officer said I must have a 'working'
holding tank installed - in order to do his little dye tablet dog and
pony show. They can't do it with a Type I. The dye nonsense is something
that they have home-grown out of their ignorance/arrogance and out of
acceptance by ignorant or complacent boaters who've let them get away
with it. They've used it so often that they might really believe holding
tanks are mandatory for all vessels. It's high time somebody woke them
the fuck up. That will be yours truly.
It will probably be January or February before the hearing as the courts
around here are backlogged but I shall keep everybody abreast of the
situation.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wayne B
<wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
===========
Is Florida FWC empowered to enforce federal regs?
Were you cited for breaking a federal reg or a state reg?
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:14:52 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>>"Wilbur Hubbard" <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote in message
>>news:4e949c3f$0$2617$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>>
>>Sorry folks, the link to the CFR Sanctuary Regs got munged. Here it is
>>again.
>>
>>
>> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=cc6b87a832159c7ead2fb2d2055becc9&rgn=div6&view=text&node=15:3.1.2.2.11.16&idno=15
>
>
> ===========
>
> Is Florida FWC empowered to enforce federal regs?
Don't know the answer to that one. . .
> Were you cited for breaking a federal reg or a state reg?
For allegedly violating a State statute. Chapter 327.53(1) Marine
sanitation.
The link above is the Federal Statutes (CFR) for the National Marine
Sanctuary. I was not cited for anything federal. The Sanctuary mostly in
state waters so state statutes apply almost everywhere. Fortunately,
there is NOTHING in Sanctuary regs that even mentions holding tanks.
Wayne B
<wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>> Were you cited for breaking a federal reg or a state reg?
>
>For allegedly violating a State statute. Chapter 327.53(1) Marine
>sanitation.
========
327.53 Marine sanitation.�
(1) Every vessel 26 feet or more in length which has an enclosed cabin
with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States
Coast Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
They may have you over a barrel with the last sentence but it's a
close call. You have a permanently installed head, it is attached
to a USCG certified type I MSD, but since you were in a federal
no-discharge area the type 1 discharge was locked off per federal
regs. They could argue however that since you were in a no discharge
area that you did not have an "appropriate" MSD, i.e., a type III
(holding tank).
Interesting case, hope you win it, but I still recommend an attorney.
You might try contacting Boat US for advice/help.
Wilbur Hubbard
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>>> Were you cited for breaking a federal reg or a state reg?
>>
>>For allegedly violating a State statute. Chapter 327.53(1) Marine
>>sanitation.
>
> ========
>
> with berthing facilities shall, while on the waters of the state, be
> equipped with a toilet. On a vessel other than a houseboat, the toilet
> may be portable or permanently installed. Every permanently installed
> toilet shall be properly attached to the appropriate United States
> Coast Guard certified or labeled marine sanitation device.
>
> They may have you over a barrel with the last sentence but it's a
> close call. You have a permanently installed head, it is attached
> to a USCG certified type I MSD, but since you were in a federal
> no-discharge area the type 1 discharge was locked off per federal
> regs. They could argue however that since you were in a no discharge
> area that you did not have an "appropriate" MSD, i.e., a type III
> (holding tank).
entity. "Appropriate" is used ONLY in the context of the statute
itself." What is appropriate within the statute is defined by the
statute. Paragraph (1) tells what's appropriate for vessels in general
(me). Paragraph (2) tells what's appropriate for a houseboat. Paragraph
(3) tells what's appropriate for a floating structure, etc. In other
words, statutes are written from broad to narrow. The narrow does not
apply to my vessel so it follows that the broad (all three types of MSD)
are appropriate for my vessel. The statute clearly doesn't concern
itself with what's appropriate in Federal waters, in Sanctuary waters -
only "while on the waters of the state." If prosecution is stupid enough
to claim that Sanctuary waters are not waters of the state then I win
right then and there because I can say to the judge that the statute I
was alleged to have violated DOES NOT APPLY. I would then ask that the
case be dismissed.
And talk about ludicrous! ("They could argue however that since you were
would mean such a vessel would be prohibited to even transit the area if
it did not have a holding tank. There is no such prohibition anywhere.
The only two classes of vessels required by Florida boating statutes to
have a holding tank are the aforementioned houseboat and floating
structure. All that needs be done to satisfy the state statutes is for
me to have a Type I, II, or III MSD with the discharge valve closed and
locked or otherwise secured. Outside the three-mile limit of state
waters it still remains legal to discharge treated and untreated sewage.
In all state waters other than no-discharge zones it still remains legal
to discharge treated sewage from a Type I and Type II MSD.
327.53(4)(a) Raw sewage shall not be discharged from any vessel,
operator of any vessel which is plumbed so that a toilet may be flushed
directly into the water or so that a holding tank may be emptied into
the water shall, while the vessel is on the waters of the state, set the
valve or other mechanism directing the sewage so as to prevent direct
discharge and lock or otherwise secure the valve so as to prevent
resetting.
other statute (should thye be able to come up with one which is
doubtful) against me.
Me:
"Objection, your honor! I'm here to defend against a charge of having
violated state statute 327.05(1). I have not been cited for violating
any statute other than 327.53(1). I have prepared to defend against
327.53(1) Therefore, in these proceedings, I may not be called to defend
against a charge that I have not been cited for. To be found guilty, the
court must find me guilty 'as charged' and not guilty as 'not charged'.
How can somebody be found guilty of that which he has not been charged?"
Judge: "Sustained!"
And, furthermore, prosecution can argue anything they want but they
cannot overcome the state statute definition of "marine sanitation
device".
The only legitimate question they might ask is "What is the
"appropriate" MSD for "Cut the Mustard?"
*According to paragraph (2)a holding tank is appropriate for a house
boat.
*According to paragraph (3)a holding tank is appropriate for a floating
structure
*According to paragraph (1) , a type I, II, or III is appropriate.
Nowere in the entire Chapter does it say my vessel, which does not meet
the legal definition of houseboat or floating structure, must have a
holding tank.
For proof all I need to do is read to the court that last sentence :
sanitation device" then refer the judge to the legal statutory
definition of marine sanitation device which is the following:
Chapter 327.02(21) "Marine sanitation device" means any equipment other
receive, retain, treat, or discharge sewage, and any process to treat
such sewage. Marine sanitation device Types I, II, and III shall be
defined as provided in 33 C.F.R. part 159.
and uses that definition of 'marine sanitation device'. Which
definition is as follows:
33 C.F.R. part 159
Type I marine sanitation device means a device that, under the test
milliliters and no visible floating solids.
Type II marine sanitation device means a device that, under the test
milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams per
liter.
Type III marine sanitation device means a device that is designed to
prevent the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any
waste derived from sewage.
not a houseboat and not a floating stucture, is a Type I, II, or III
MSD.
> Interesting case, hope you win it, but I still recommend an attorney.
> You might try contacting Boat US for advice/help.
hire an attorney and I will win in an appeals court and the impact will
be even greater.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wilbur Hubbard
news:qmp997tnj3qia0drq...@4ax.com...
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>>Besides, I have read the entire chapter in the Code of Federal
>>Regulations as to Marine Sanctuary regulations and nowhere in those,
>>either does it say I must have a holding tank.
>
> Proverb
>
> Sometimes proverbs are true.
>
I believe in fighting my own battles until I'm no longer on equal
footing with my opponent. It is my opinion that the officer who cited me
is blowing smoke. I doubt he shows but if he does show I can handle him
and his attorney. Why? There is nothing even the best attorney can do
but hope I'm totally inept or don't show up myself so they win by
default. They cannot prove non-compliance because the very language of
the statute they accuse me of violating is amply demonstrated by my
using statutory definitions from the same Chapter that I'm in full
compliance.
--
Gregory Hall
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
Don't confuse competence and the confidence it engenders with being a
blowhard.
--
Gregory Hall
Wilbur Hubbard
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:16:29 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>>"WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
>>news:qmp997tnj3qia0drq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:42:43 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
>>> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Besides, I have read the entire chapter in the Code of Federal
>>>>Regulations as to Marine Sanctuary regulations and nowhere in those,
>>>>either does it say I must have a holding tank.
>>>
>>> He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.
>>> Proverb
>>>
>>> Sometimes proverbs are true.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I believe in fighting my own battles until I'm no longer on equal
>>footing with my opponent. It is my opinion that the officer who cited
>>me
>>is blowing smoke. I doubt he shows but if he does show I can handle
>>him
>>and his attorney. Why? There is nothing even the best attorney can do
>>but hope I'm totally inept or don't show up myself so they win by
>>default. They cannot prove non-compliance because the very language of
>>the statute they accuse me of violating is amply demonstrated by my
>>using statutory definitions from the same Chapter that I'm in full
>>compliance.
>
I'll keep you informed as to the outcome. I'm planning to get a
transcript of the proceedings which I will type out and post or scan and
post a link to it in PDF.
Wilbur Hubbard
Wilbur Hubbard
news:531rfn....@news.alt.net...
> "WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
> news:lv5c975vjhkmnt6kt...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:08:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
>> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks, I will win. If I don't win first time around, I will appeal
>>>and
>>>hire an attorney and I will win in an appeals court and the impact
>>>will
>>>be even greater.
>>
>> You're such a blowhard.
>
>
>
> Don't confuse competence and the confidence it engenders with being a
> blowhard.
BINGO!
Wilbur Hubbard
Wayne B
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:01:55 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
><wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>
>>" Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
>>news:531rfn....@news.alt.net...
>>> "WaIIy" <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:lv5c975vjhkmnt6kt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:08:41 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
>>>> <wilbur...@thefarm.invallid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks, I will win. If I don't win first time around, I will appeal
>>>>>and
>>>>>hire an attorney and I will win in an appeals court and the impact
>>>>>will
>>>>>be even greater.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You're such a blowhard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't confuse competence and the confidence it engenders with being a
>>> blowhard.
>>
>>
>>
>>BINGO!
>>
>>Wilbur Hubbard
>
>Okay, okay.
>
>Bingo2.
>
>I do hope you win, since you weren't bothering anyone and appear to be a
>responsible boater.
================
I hope he wins because I believe he was in compliance with applicable
law. Florida FWC has a track record here of over zealous enforcement
and creative interpretation of the law. That affects all of us
Florida boaters.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
So, basically, you're a shit-for-brains.
Neal Warren/Wilbur Hubbard/Gregory Hall
PO Box 1015
Tavernier, FL 33070
305 304-7546
Wilbur Hubbard
Exactly! FWC officers have a reputation for being bullies. They are law
enforcement officers yet many of them seem to think they are law
creation officers. Like the one who cited me, most don't have even a
basic understanding of the statutes. They rely on intimidation and the
unwillingness of boaters to take them to court and secure justice. This
has got to stop. The only way to stop law enforcement bullies is to slap
them down in a court of law. This is exactly what I intend to do. I've
several months to study and memorize all the in's and out's I can think
of for this case. I WILL be totally prepared with notes, documents to
submit to the judge, strategy for any eventually or trick they might be
planning to throw at me. I'm very confident because I am in full
compliance with the language and intent of the statute the FWC officer
cited me for.
I am doing this not only for myself but for fellow boaters who have been
regularly harassed and abused by law enforcement officers cum law
creation officers.
Wilbur Hubbard
Don't tread on me!
Wilbur Hubbard
<snippage>
> I do hope you win, since you weren't bothering anyone and appear to be
> a
> responsible boater.
Thanks, mon!
Wilbur Hubbard
Anonymous
lit...@gmail.com
I see that this thread is from quite some time ago, but I don't see the results of your court appearance. Were you successful in making your case? I have a similar situation and would like to know how it worked out for you.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.
simply not violating the section of the statutes they claimed I was.
It was a witch hunt they thought they could bully their way through.
They failed.
What did you get written up for?
--
Sir Gregory aka Wilbur
Jack Ryan
Capt...@gmail.com
Neal D. Warren/Wilbur Hubbard/Gregory Hall