Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Dennis
Apr 6, 2012, 3:09:23 PM4/6/12
to
Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
025714320.html
Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
By MARK THIESSEN and RACHEL D'ORO | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago
OVER THE GULF OF ALASKA (AP) — The long, lonely voyage of the Japanese
ghost ship is over.
A U.S. Coast Guard cutter unleashed cannon fire on the abandoned 164-foot
Ryou-Un Maru on Thursday, ending a journey that began when last year's
tsunami dislodged it and set it adrift across the Pacific Ocean.
It sank into waters more than 6,000 feet deep in the Gulf of Alaska,
about 180 miles west of the southeast Alaska coast, the Coast Guard said.
The crew pummeled the ghost ship with high explosive ammunition, and the
Ryou-Un Maru soon burst into flames, took on water and began listing,
officials said.
A huge column of smoke could be seen over the gulf as a Coast Guard C-130
cargo plane, sent to observe the sinking, dropped a buoy to monitor for
any possible pollution from the sunken ship.
The Coast Guard warned mariners to stay away, and aviation authorities
did the same for pilots.
In about four hours, the ship vanished into the water, said Chief Petty
Officer Kip Wadlow in Juneau.
Officials decided to sink the ship rather than risk the chance of it
running aground or endangering other vessels in the busy shipping lanes
between North America and Asia.
The ship had no lights or communications system, and its tank was able to
carry more than 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Officials, however, didn't
know how much fuel, if any, was aboard.
"It's less risky than it would be running into shore or running into
(maritime) traffic," Coast Guard spokesman Paul Webb said.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency studied the problem and decided it is safer to sink the
ship and let the fuel evaporate in the open water.
A light sheen and minimal debris were visible as the vessel sunk, but the
sheen is expected to quickly dissipate, the Coast Guard said in a news
release.
The ship was at Hokkaido, Japan, and destined for scrapping when a
magnitude-9.0 earthquake that struck the country in March 2011 triggered
a tsunami.
The waves dislodged the vessel and set it adrift. In total, about 5
million tons of debris was swept out to sea.
The boat did not have any cargo aboard, Webb said. He said he didn't know
who owned the Ryou-Un Maru, which had been traveling about 1 mph in
recent days.
As the Coast Guard was readying to fire on the vessel, a Canadian fishing
vessel, the 62-foot Bernice C, claimed salvage rights over the ghost ship
in international waters.
Plans to sink it were halted so the Canadian crew could have a chance to
take the stricken ship. A Canadian official with knowledge of the
situation told The Associated Press that the Bernice C was unable to tow
it.
That delay, in part, prompted the cargo plane to return to Kodiak,
Alaska, before the ship sank because the plane burned up fuel while
circling the area monitoring the situation.
The Canadian boat left, and once it was about 6 miles from the Japanese
vessel, the Coast Guard began to fire, first with 25 mm shells, then a
few hours later with ammunition twice that size.
In the year since the tsunami, the debris from Japan has washed up on
shores across the Pacific.
In January, a half dozen large buoys suspected to be from Japanese oyster
farms appeared at the top of Alaska's panhandle and may be among the
first debris from the tsunami.
State health and environmental officials have said there's little need to
be worried that debris landing on Alaska shores will be contaminated by
radiation.
The earthquake triggered the world's worst nuclear crisis since the
Chernobyl accident in 1986.
State officials have been working with federal counterparts to gauge the
danger of debris including material affected by a damaged nuclear power
plant, to see if Alaska residents, seafood or wild game could be
affected.
___
D'Oro reported from Anchorage, Alaska. Associated Press writers Rob
Gillies in Toronto, Dan Joling in Anchorage and Whitney Phillips in
Phoenix contributed to this repor
Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
025714320.html
Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
By MARK THIESSEN and RACHEL D'ORO | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago
OVER THE GULF OF ALASKA (AP) — The long, lonely voyage of the Japanese
ghost ship is over.
A U.S. Coast Guard cutter unleashed cannon fire on the abandoned 164-foot
Ryou-Un Maru on Thursday, ending a journey that began when last year's
tsunami dislodged it and set it adrift across the Pacific Ocean.
It sank into waters more than 6,000 feet deep in the Gulf of Alaska,
about 180 miles west of the southeast Alaska coast, the Coast Guard said.
The crew pummeled the ghost ship with high explosive ammunition, and the
Ryou-Un Maru soon burst into flames, took on water and began listing,
officials said.
A huge column of smoke could be seen over the gulf as a Coast Guard C-130
cargo plane, sent to observe the sinking, dropped a buoy to monitor for
any possible pollution from the sunken ship.
The Coast Guard warned mariners to stay away, and aviation authorities
did the same for pilots.
In about four hours, the ship vanished into the water, said Chief Petty
Officer Kip Wadlow in Juneau.
Officials decided to sink the ship rather than risk the chance of it
running aground or endangering other vessels in the busy shipping lanes
between North America and Asia.
The ship had no lights or communications system, and its tank was able to
carry more than 2,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Officials, however, didn't
know how much fuel, if any, was aboard.
"It's less risky than it would be running into shore or running into
(maritime) traffic," Coast Guard spokesman Paul Webb said.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental
Protection Agency studied the problem and decided it is safer to sink the
ship and let the fuel evaporate in the open water.
A light sheen and minimal debris were visible as the vessel sunk, but the
sheen is expected to quickly dissipate, the Coast Guard said in a news
release.
The ship was at Hokkaido, Japan, and destined for scrapping when a
magnitude-9.0 earthquake that struck the country in March 2011 triggered
a tsunami.
The waves dislodged the vessel and set it adrift. In total, about 5
million tons of debris was swept out to sea.
The boat did not have any cargo aboard, Webb said. He said he didn't know
who owned the Ryou-Un Maru, which had been traveling about 1 mph in
recent days.
As the Coast Guard was readying to fire on the vessel, a Canadian fishing
vessel, the 62-foot Bernice C, claimed salvage rights over the ghost ship
in international waters.
Plans to sink it were halted so the Canadian crew could have a chance to
take the stricken ship. A Canadian official with knowledge of the
situation told The Associated Press that the Bernice C was unable to tow
it.
That delay, in part, prompted the cargo plane to return to Kodiak,
Alaska, before the ship sank because the plane burned up fuel while
circling the area monitoring the situation.
The Canadian boat left, and once it was about 6 miles from the Japanese
vessel, the Coast Guard began to fire, first with 25 mm shells, then a
few hours later with ammunition twice that size.
In the year since the tsunami, the debris from Japan has washed up on
shores across the Pacific.
In January, a half dozen large buoys suspected to be from Japanese oyster
farms appeared at the top of Alaska's panhandle and may be among the
first debris from the tsunami.
State health and environmental officials have said there's little need to
be worried that debris landing on Alaska shores will be contaminated by
radiation.
The earthquake triggered the world's worst nuclear crisis since the
Chernobyl accident in 1986.
State officials have been working with federal counterparts to gauge the
danger of debris including material affected by a damaged nuclear power
plant, to see if Alaska residents, seafood or wild game could be
affected.
___
D'Oro reported from Anchorage, Alaska. Associated Press writers Rob
Gillies in Toronto, Dan Joling in Anchorage and Whitney Phillips in
Phoenix contributed to this repor
Mark Sieving
Apr 6, 2012, 5:09:36 PM4/6/12
to
On 6 Apr 2012 19:09:23 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
I read an article yesterday that said someone was claiming salvage
rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
Guess that didn't work out.
wrote:
>Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
Guess that didn't work out.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 6, 2012, 5:15:58 PM4/6/12
to
an effective deep sea salvage craft.
Eugene L Griessel
I Refuse To Have A Battle Of Wits With An Unarmed Person
La N.
Apr 6, 2012, 5:21:39 PM4/6/12
to
"Dennis" <tsalagi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA02D90041BEBBts...@130.133.4.11...
> Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
> 025714320.html
>
> Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
> By MARK THIESSEN and RACHEL D'ORO | Associated Press - 13 hrs ago
> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
> 025714320.html
>
> Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
>
Kind of sad.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
- nil
peter skelton
Apr 6, 2012, 6:52:54 PM4/6/12
to
"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
news:r6nun71vgom3goabd...@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:09:36 -0500, Mark Sieving
<mark.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2012 19:09:23 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>>Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>
>I read an article yesterday that said someone was claiming salvage
>rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
>Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
>Guess that didn't work out.
>I heard the "ship" was a 62 foot vessel. Hardly what one would call
an effective deep sea salvage craft.
It was a fishing boat, a bit less than half the size of the derelict. It put
men aboard, found that the derelict's tanks had ruptured and the hold was
awash with diesel. Having no ability to pump the fuel in an environmentally
acceptable manner, and knowing the rules, the fishing vessel withdrew. The
report was on the national last night, you can see it on cbc.ca, if you're
interested.
news:r6nun71vgom3goabd...@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:09:36 -0500, Mark Sieving
<mark.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2012 19:09:23 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>>Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>
>I read an article yesterday that said someone was claiming salvage
>rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
>Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
>Guess that didn't work out.
>I heard the "ship" was a 62 foot vessel. Hardly what one would call
an effective deep sea salvage craft.
men aboard, found that the derelict's tanks had ruptured and the hold was
awash with diesel. Having no ability to pump the fuel in an environmentally
acceptable manner, and knowing the rules, the fishing vessel withdrew. The
report was on the national last night, you can see it on cbc.ca, if you're
interested.
Weatherlawyer
Apr 6, 2012, 9:11:17 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 6, 10:21 pm, "La N." <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Kind of sad.
>
> Video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
There was a lot of sad around:
>
> Kind of sad.
>
> Video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
> http://familiarsight.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat43282577/index.html
(These went the other way.)
Dennis
Apr 6, 2012, 10:33:11 PM4/6/12
to
>> Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
>> 025714320.html
>>
>> Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
>> By MARK THIESSEN and RACHEL D'ORO | Associated Press - 13 hrs ago
>>
>
> Kind of sad.
>
> Video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
>
> - nil
>
>
It is sad! I was hoping they could salvage her and even put her back in
>> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>>
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-cannon-fire-sinks-japanese-ghost-ship-
>> 025714320.html
>>
>> Coast Guard cannon fire sinks Japanese ghost ship
>> By MARK THIESSEN and RACHEL D'ORO | Associated Press - 13 hrs ago
>>
>
> Kind of sad.
>
> Video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
>
> - nil
>
>
service.
HMCS Godzilla? :-)
Dennis
Dennis
Apr 6, 2012, 11:20:57 PM4/6/12
to
Weatherlawyer wrote:
> On Apr 6, 10:21 pm, "La N." <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kind of sad.
>>
>> Video:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
>
> There was a lot of sad around:
Indeed!
> On Apr 6, 10:21 pm, "La N." <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kind of sad.
>>
>> Video:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB8CO-2w3Kg
>
> There was a lot of sad around:
>
>> http://familiarsight.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat43282577/index.html
>
> (These went the other way.)
The 300 ton vessel Kiku Maru according to the translator has been there for
>> http://familiarsight.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat43282577/index.html
>
> (These went the other way.)
15 years; maybe this was a different tsunami?
Dennis
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 7, 2012, 10:31:07 AM4/7/12
to
Il 07/04/2012 00:52, peter skelton ha scritto:
>>> Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>>> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>>
>> I read an article yesterday that said someone was claiming salvage
>> rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
>> Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
>> Guess that didn't work out.
>
>> I heard the "ship" was a 62 foot vessel. Hardly what one would call
> an effective deep sea salvage craft.
>
> It was a fishing boat, a bit less than half the size of the derelict. It
> put men aboard, found that the derelict's tanks had ruptured and the
> hold was awash with diesel. Having no ability to pump the fuel in an
> environmentally acceptable manner, and knowing the rules, the fishing
> vessel withdrew. The report was on the national last night, you can see
> it on cbc.ca, if you're interested.
I feel that we will see a rather interesting court litigation....
>>> Aw gee, and she could've been salvaged! Maybe HMCS Ballsaglow? We
>>> Merkins can't forget Pearl Harbor!
>>
>> I read an article yesterday that said someone was claiming salvage
>> rights and had a ship on the way to tow the derelict away. Sais the
>> Coast Guard was going to wait to see if they could actually do it.
>> Guess that didn't work out.
>
>> I heard the "ship" was a 62 foot vessel. Hardly what one would call
> an effective deep sea salvage craft.
>
> It was a fishing boat, a bit less than half the size of the derelict. It
> put men aboard, found that the derelict's tanks had ruptured and the
> hold was awash with diesel. Having no ability to pump the fuel in an
> environmentally acceptable manner, and knowing the rules, the fishing
> vessel withdrew. The report was on the national last night, you can see
> it on cbc.ca, if you're interested.
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorigo.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 7, 2012, 10:38:10 AM4/7/12
to
Il 07/04/2012 05:20, Dennis ha scritto:
>>> http://familiarsight.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat43282577/index.html
>>
>> (These went the other way.)
>
> The 300 ton vessel Kiku Maru according to the translator has been there for
> 15 years; maybe this was a different tsunami?
looking at the fixtures around, I think the machine translation has got
>>> http://familiarsight.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/cat43282577/index.html
>>
>> (These went the other way.)
>
> The 300 ton vessel Kiku Maru according to the translator has been there for
> 15 years; maybe this was a different tsunami?
wrong the Japanese Navalese (actually Maritimese) for the service age
(that is, 15 years from delivery to the shipowner or the maiden voyage)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
a425couple
Apr 7, 2012, 10:49:12 PM4/7/12
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message...
How do you figure that dott?
As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
Although our scrap metal thieves will do terrible damage to
get scrap metal,,,,, *
I have trouble seeing there was really much potential value to
anyone.
I can't even see the US successfully litigating to try to
recover the cost of shells for the sinkex!
(However, since the Canadian's already had had a couple
men aboard, why they just didn't give them 2 thermite grenades
((or blocks of C-4)) to drop in the bilges??!!)
* re: metal thieves, = ugly writing, ugly photos, see
http://pakstarz.blogspot.com/2011/12/cooking-with-copper-warning-more-than.html
or google
"Cooking with Copper" Dallas
As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
Although our scrap metal thieves will do terrible damage to
get scrap metal,,,,, *
I have trouble seeing there was really much potential value to
anyone.
I can't even see the US successfully litigating to try to
recover the cost of shells for the sinkex!
(However, since the Canadian's already had had a couple
men aboard, why they just didn't give them 2 thermite grenades
((or blocks of C-4)) to drop in the bilges??!!)
* re: metal thieves, = ugly writing, ugly photos, see
http://pakstarz.blogspot.com/2011/12/cooking-with-copper-warning-more-than.html
or google
"Cooking with Copper" Dallas
Mark Borgerson
Apr 7, 2012, 11:20:25 PM4/7/12
to
In article <jlqub...@news6.newsguy.com>, a425c...@hotmail.com
says...
Do you think that CG cutters in that size range normally
carry either thermite or C4?
says...
carry either thermite or C4?
>
> * re: metal thieves, = ugly writing, ugly photos, see
> http://pakstarz.blogspot.com/2011/12/cooking-with-copper-warning-more-than.html
> or google
> "Cooking with Copper" Dallas
Mark Borgerson
> * re: metal thieves, = ugly writing, ugly photos, see
> http://pakstarz.blogspot.com/2011/12/cooking-with-copper-warning-more-than.html
> or google
> "Cooking with Copper" Dallas
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 8, 2012, 1:07:23 AM4/8/12
to
Mark Borgerson wrote:
>
> Do you think that CG cutters in that size range normally
> carry either thermite or C4?
Some do (why not, son?). But in this case they wanted the fun of target practice.
>
> Do you think that CG cutters in that size range normally
> carry either thermite or C4?
;-)
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Apr 8, 2012, 1:39:40 AM4/8/12
to
In article <t7GdnZG4pbhkgRzS...@supernews.com>,
> But in this case they wanted the fun of target practice.
> ;-(
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
> Mark Borgerson wrote:
> >
> > Do you think that CG cutters in that size range normally
> > carry either thermite or C4?
>
> Some do (why not, son?).
then you should be able to easily verify this fact
> Mark Borgerson wrote:
> >
> > Do you think that CG cutters in that size range normally
> > carry either thermite or C4?
>
> Some do (why not, son?).
> But in this case they wanted the fun of target practice.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 7:30:57 AM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 04:49, a425couple ha scritto:
>> I feel that we will see a rather interesting court litigation....
>
> How do you figure that dott?
> As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
> scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
> And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
> Although our scrap metal thieves will do terrible damage to
> get scrap metal,,,,, *
> I have trouble seeing there was really much potential value to
> anyone.
> I can't even see the US successfully litigating to try to
> recover the cost of shells for the sinkex!
that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
>> I feel that we will see a rather interesting court litigation....
>
> How do you figure that dott?
> As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
> scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
> And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
> Although our scrap metal thieves will do terrible damage to
> get scrap metal,,,,, *
> I have trouble seeing there was really much potential value to
> anyone.
> I can't even see the US successfully litigating to try to
> recover the cost of shells for the sinkex!
sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
legal annoyance; whose is compounded by the lack of a proper estimating
survey; the basis for the litigation is, as you correctly points, in the
scrap metal value (aside that seems that the cost of workforce, and more
so .ca workplace safety standards clearly drive it into red) but this is
immaterial in a court debate; so, I can only say good luck and fair
winds to those in the USCG legal service assigned to the case..
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Weatherlawyer
Apr 8, 2012, 9:46:35 AM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 12:30 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedet...@ask.me> wrote:
> Il 08/04/2012 04:49, a425couple ha scritto:
>
> >> I feel that we will see a rather interesting court litigation....
>
> > How do you figure that dott?
> > As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
> > scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
> > And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
>
> Il 08/04/2012 04:49, a425couple ha scritto:
>
> >> I feel that we will see a rather interesting court litigation....
>
> > How do you figure that dott?
> > As I understand it, It was old, economicly useless and awaiting
> > scrapping when the big wave hit & carried her out to sea.
> > And now, a year exposed to salt water & no maintenance??
>
> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
> legal annoyance.
> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
The Canuks were allowed aboard, keeping an expensive US govt., craft
at sea while doing so.
They saw the state of things and decided it wasn't worth the bother or
it was too dangerous to play games with. It sounds to me like they
were in the area and wanted to check it out in case it was possible to
make a buck on it.
If the thing was unsafe to man, it could only be removed with
violence. It was a floating danger. Sad to see it go but better off
dead. Anyone that wanted it could have taken it if they had the
ability to do so. The authorities were not high handed.
peter skelton
Apr 8, 2012, 10:18:24 AM4/8/12
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote in message
news:RFegr.156242$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
This may be a shock to you but the behaviour of both the fishing vessel and
the USCG was entirely proper and within the law. Each has been complimentary
about the other.
Peter
news:RFegr.156242$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
the USCG was entirely proper and within the law. Each has been complimentary
about the other.
Peter
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 10:33:30 AM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 15:46, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:
>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
>> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
>> legal annoyance.
>
> The Canuks were allowed aboard, keeping an expensive US govt., craft
> at sea while doing so.
>
> They saw the state of things and decided it wasn't worth the bother or
> it was too dangerous to play games with. It sounds to me like they
> were in the area and wanted to check it out in case it was possible to
> make a buck on it.
>
> If the thing was unsafe to man, it could only be removed with
> violence. It was a floating danger. Sad to see it go but better off
> dead. Anyone that wanted it could have taken it if they had the
> ability to do so. The authorities were not high handed.
I agree more or less, save the last point; I don't know what exchange of
>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
>> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
>> legal annoyance.
>
> The Canuks were allowed aboard, keeping an expensive US govt., craft
> at sea while doing so.
>
> They saw the state of things and decided it wasn't worth the bother or
> it was too dangerous to play games with. It sounds to me like they
> were in the area and wanted to check it out in case it was possible to
> make a buck on it.
>
> If the thing was unsafe to man, it could only be removed with
> violence. It was a floating danger. Sad to see it go but better off
> dead. Anyone that wanted it could have taken it if they had the
> ability to do so. The authorities were not high handed.
comms (and paperworks) happened between USCGS and the canuck ship, but
if they have looked about "in case it was possible to make a buck on
it", they theoretically can have also figured that legal pissing off is
the best way to make money; and the authorities (in this case, the
skipper of the cutter and her command ashore) isn't high-handed, but
tricked into some sort of legal hookup mess (for a starter, what is the
jurisdiction there ? US Federal court or canadian court ? and let's not
forget that UK/Commonwealth maritime laws are ripe of little-known
precedents, laws and acts from the days of sail and never repealed, I
guess it's an orgasm for an common "law" lawyer.... :(
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 10:40:15 AM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 16:18, peter skelton ha scritto:
>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
> legal annoyance; whose is compounded by the lack of a proper estimating
> survey; the basis for the litigation is, as you correctly points, in the
> scrap metal value (aside that seems that the cost of workforce, and more
> so .ca workplace safety standards clearly drive it into red) but this is
> immaterial in a court debate; so, I can only say good luck and fair
> winds to those in the USCG legal service assigned to the case..
>
>
> This may be a shock to you but the behaviour of both the fishing vessel
> and the USCG was entirely proper and within the law. Each has been
> complimentary about the other.
mah, I remain unconvinced; and as pointed above, one can't be sure of
>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
> legal annoyance; whose is compounded by the lack of a proper estimating
> survey; the basis for the litigation is, as you correctly points, in the
> scrap metal value (aside that seems that the cost of workforce, and more
> so .ca workplace safety standards clearly drive it into red) but this is
> immaterial in a court debate; so, I can only say good luck and fair
> winds to those in the USCG legal service assigned to the case..
>
>
> This may be a shock to you but the behaviour of both the fishing vessel
> and the USCG was entirely proper and within the law. Each has been
> complimentary about the other.
what basis can be bringed up in starting the legal mess, esp. canadian
ones (whose can be even an old Tudor or Stuart or Hannover Act...)
common law lacks the virtues or Roman Law....
Andrew Chaplin
Apr 8, 2012, 12:17:10 PM4/8/12
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in news:jrhgr.156263
$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
> common law lacks the virtues or Roman Law....
Very fortunately. "Stare decisis!"
That said, Canadian admiralty law is based on that of the U.K., and it came
from the Byzantine tradition. As they say on Mythbusters, "Well, there's
yer problem."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
> common law lacks the virtues or Roman Law....
That said, Canadian admiralty law is based on that of the U.K., and it came
from the Byzantine tradition. As they say on Mythbusters, "Well, there's
yer problem."
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
a425couple
Apr 9, 2012, 12:27:09 PM4/9/12
to
"dott.Piergiorgio" <chied...@ask.me> wrote in message...
> Il 08/04/2012 15:46, Weatherlawyer ha scritto:
>>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
>>> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
>>> legal annoyance.
>> The Canuks were allowed aboard, keeping an expensive US
>> govt., craft at sea while doing so.
>> They saw the state of things and decided it wasn't worth the bother or
>> it was too dangerous to play games with. It sounds to me like they
>> were in the area and wanted to check it out in case it was possible to
>> make a buck on it.
>> If the thing was unsafe to man, it could only be removed with
>> violence. It was a floating danger. Sad to see it go but better off
>> dead. Anyone that wanted it could have taken it if they had the
>> ability to do so. The authorities were not high handed.
>
> I agree more or less, save the last point; I don't know what exchange
> of comms (and paperworks) happened between USCGS and the
> canuck ship, but if they have looked about "in case it was possible
> to make a buck on it", they theoretically can have also figured that
> legal pissing off is the best way to make money; ----
>>> that the canadian private ship has already attempted to obstacle the
>>> sinking on legal points is in my eyes a clear indication of the looming
>>> legal annoyance.
>> The Canuks were allowed aboard, keeping an expensive US
>> govt., craft at sea while doing so.
>> They saw the state of things and decided it wasn't worth the bother or
>> it was too dangerous to play games with. It sounds to me like they
>> were in the area and wanted to check it out in case it was possible to
>> make a buck on it.
>> If the thing was unsafe to man, it could only be removed with
>> violence. It was a floating danger. Sad to see it go but better off
>> dead. Anyone that wanted it could have taken it if they had the
>> ability to do so. The authorities were not high handed.
>
> I agree more or less, save the last point; I don't know what exchange
> of comms (and paperworks) happened between USCGS and the
> canuck ship, but if they have looked about "in case it was possible
> to make a buck on it", they theoretically can have also figured that
> tricked into some sort of legal hookup mess
(only somewhat tongue in cheek!)
Well, certainly exceptions exist (and with all the ambulance
chasing lawyers advertising constantly on US TV - it can
only get worse!!!).
But, there are certainly base group philosophies & biases
that are relevant here.
For over 25 years my good loyal friend and next door
neighbor listed his occupation as "commercial fisherman".
Generally, they do not like government rules, and hate
getting involved in courts. They want to deal with
real & tangible things, preferably outside.
They naturally wish to avoid the paper shuffling,
word twisting & distorting, fine point arguing
types found in courtrooms.
They have ropes & weights & know how to use them!
Hmmm, perhaps that has something to do with
why I never introduced him to my brother-in-law?
(Although,,,, it might have saved multiple trees??)
0 new messages