John Hudson asked:
What / which truth was twisted ?
jh
This "truth" which I posted yesteday and you apparently missed.
================================================================
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/
|