jeffies, until five days after this discussion started you were still claiming
that properly ducumented vessels could be operated by a non-citizen under any
circumstance and under all condition. this is not true. a *casual* non-citizen
user can under *some* conditions. Even then, jeffies, you could not produce
the specifics, except by a suspect reference in a single BoatsUS mag article,
said article missing a major portion of the law. if I had not done the work
you claimed to have done, you would STILL be arguing that ANY duc vessel can be
used by ANY non-citizen under ANY and ALL conditions, as you were up to that
point arguing.
All, jeffies, because you hear those little girls voices laughing from high
school days.
"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/5/2004 12:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
As I said in my first post, your claim the non-citizens could not legally
circumvent the law with some ownership fiction was correct. The discussion
since that point has been about the case where the ownership is properly
established, but a non-citizen is in command. On that topic, you were dead
wrong; you're admitting as much with your backpedaling.
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, this discussion was about a non-citizen operating a documented
vesse.
operation of a vessel exclusively or nearly exclusively be a single
non-citizen
or a single group of closely associated non-citizens clearly is a violation
and
the boat will be sieze if caught.
you, jeffies -- trying against all hope to stop the memories of all those
girls
in high school laughing at your stupidity -- are looking for a way out of
the
discussion exception. jeffies, those girls who laughed at you can't even
remember your name, and wouldn't care in the slightest if someone told
them.
jeffies, you have to intrinsic value to society. get used to it.
"Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/4/2004 9:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, you in fact ignored -- or were utterly ignorant of -- the
issue.
a
non-citizen can NOT be the primary operator of a documented vessel,
because
to
be so clearly makes of sham of any claim of non-ownership of the vessel.
Are you actually claiming that the operator of a vessel is the same as the
owner
of a vessel??? You're trying to backpedal out of this by shifting the
meaning
of "operator" from the person in command to the actual owner. But in
various
previous posts you were quite explicit in your claim that a citizen must
be
on
board and in command at all times:
"US documentation has been lost on recreational vessels found to being
operating
by a non-citizen with not citizens onboard and in command."
"wanna hand your documented vessel over to a non-citizen for a couple
hours off a CG station? Let me know ahead of time and I will arrange a
welcoming committee."
As I've shown, it is perfectly legal for a vessel with only a recreational
endorsement to be loaned or chartered to a non-citizen. I've shown the
actual
law, and some commentary on it from a major insurance company. All you've
shown
is a CG site that never addresses the issue of who can or cannot be in
command.
I gave you the link to the US Code, feel free to search it for anything
that
supports you position. What you'll find is a lot of law that puts
restrictions
on commercial vessels, especially fishing vessels. But recreational
vessels
are
specifically excluded.
Remember, this discussion has nothing to do with the original poster; it
is
entirely about your false claim that a citizen must be onboard and in
command
at
all times.
That is why I pushed you to come up with the complete code, and you were
not
able to do so. In the end, I produced the information. Even now, I
doubt
you
understand what it says, as witness your dumb cluck statement below.
note, box of rocks, the use of the term primary. ask your wife to
explain
it
to you.
From: "Jeff Morris"
Date: 10/3/2004 11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
I don't write them! I tried to put it in simple English, but jaxie
insisted
on
the exact paragraph in the law. The thought the Boat/US magazine
article
was
pretty clear.
"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 19:52:05 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote:
The current law, one more time:
Title 46
Section 12110. Limitations on operations authorized by certificates
...
(c) A vessel with only a recreational endorsement may not be
operated other than for pleasure.
(d) A documented vessel, other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement, may be placed under the command only
of a
citizen of the United States.
Under the new law, which passed the House last week, this will be
Section
12131,
with the wording:
A documented vessel (other than a vessel with only a
recreational endorsement) may be placed under the command
only of a citizen of the United States.
Jeff:
Some folks have difficulties with double negatives and legalese.
How about easing the burden with a translation of
Title 46, Sec 12110 para d) - something like this for example:
" A documented vessel with only a recreational endorsement may be
placed under the command of a non-citizen of the United States."
Brian W