Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] The Economist and the Lacey Act, was: for the resident grammarians/

Subject: [OM] The Economist and the Lacey Act, was: for the resident grammarians/English-defenders, etc
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:53:05 -0400
Whenever something sounds too good (or bad) to be true it usually is. 
I'd have expected some half truth coverage of this case from a randomly 
chosen blogger but I expect a lot more from the Economist... but didn't 
get it.  I have now taken the time to read the entire 47 pages of the 
judgment on appeal to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which held to 
the original conviction of the lower court.

The first paragraph of the article in the Economist says:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in 
plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran 
regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the 
Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting 
or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, 
poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that 
they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The 
lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got 
eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Economist wants us to believe that the only thing these guys were 
charged with was "importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than 
cardboard boxes".  In fact, they were also in violation of Honduran laws 
requiring that the lobster catch be reported to Honduran fishery 
authorities, that it be processed in Honduras, that lobsters with tails 
shorter than 5.5" not be taken, and that females carrying eggs not be 
taken and that egg sacs and flippers not be cut off the females (done to 
hide the fact of taking gravid females).  The claim that these guys 
didn't know they were breaking Honduran laws is ludicrous.

The case is extraordinarily complicated because the Hondurans 
invalidated some of these fishing regulations after the Americans had 
been tried and convicted.  But the court held that they were guilty of 
violating laws in effect at the time they committed the crimes.  They 
also point out that they can't be retroactively judged innocent since 
enough money in certain countries (like Honduaras maybe) could buy any 
change in law that one might desire.

And if you still feel sorry for them (after all, it was only 77,000 
pounds of lobster) don't.  You see, breaking Honduran law and the Lacey 
Act is hardly all they were guilty of.  They were also convicted of 
conspiracy, smuggling and money laundering.

If you're up to the read, the Circuit Court's opinion is here:
<http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115148op2.pdf>

And that's the other side of the story.

Chuck Norcutt




Jez Cunningham wrote:
> The other paragraphs are pretty interesting too...
> 
> On 29 July 2010 14:38, John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Do wacky politicians generate wacky laws ?
>>
>> Read the first paragraph in this piece !
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/36nwqcc
>>
>>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz