Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal for a Canadian to do
a
bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from Hinckley.

it is still not legal for a Canadian to lease a bare-boat charter on a
documented vessel from Hinckley if the Canadian operates the vessel in an
exclusive manner for an extended period of time (two weeks or a month is not an
extended period of time jeffies).

jeffies, the above is beyond your capability to understand. don't try.

************************************************** *********BRIQN!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!********************** ***************,

a **registered** vessel is NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT a "documented"
vessel, and ****therefore**** a registered vessel is not a US-flagged vessel.
US-flagged vessels hold valid documentation. That is the definition of the
term US-flagged.

why can you get that through your head.

geesh, rational discussion is not possible with you guys because you are not
capable of understanding even basic terms. Do traffic lights often confuse
you?

"BrianH"
Date: 10/5/2004 2:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Jeff Morris wrote:
"BrianH" wrote in message
...
Geoffrey W. Schultz wrote:
Jeff,
Better yet, place him into your kill file.
. I am amazed how Jeff
can be as civil as he is with such gratuitous invective directed at
him.

We've learned to ignore that side of jaxie; he has Tourette's
Syndrome.

I had to look that one up ....
"Behavioral and Developmental - Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
obsessions and compulsions, emotional lability, irritability, impulsivity,
aggressivity, and self-injurious behaviors; varied learning disabilities. "
Ah, well, okay - even so, it's not necessary to see such vitriolic rudeness
and blind refusal to accept another's point of view with wild, irrelevant
ramblings - ergo plonk.

I'm sorry I even contributed and perhaps encouraged the direction of
the thread.

Actually, this was interesting - One point that surprised me was that
the law allowing non-citizens to be in command was changed less than
10 years ago. Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal
for a Canadian to do a bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from
Hinckley.

To belabor a point, probably the Slovenes have registered but not documented
their craft and that is enough for the authorities in Ljubljana to accept -
perhaps not knowing of the subtle double procedure. How else could someone
have a US flagged ship for $100 (if my informant was honest about his
transaction)? That then begs the question of their true status when cruising
into other nations' waters.

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished. Perhaps it circumvented the
letter of the law but the spirit is clearly violated in some shady way and
they do not want to advertise it.

Best, BrianH.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
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.

Actually, my first post on the topic was:

"First of all, jaxie doesn't understand the rules. His claim that a citizen
must
be on documented vessels at all times is completely bogus. It may be true for
commercial fishing vessels, but not for recreational boats."

Its pretty clear that I knew that recreation vessels were covered by different
rules.

It was two days after your comment, which I had let slide until it appeared that
someone beleived you.

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.

I posted the exact law in the US Code which says that recreational vessel are
exempt form the "citizen in command" rule. I also posted the new wording which
is on the Senate floor now The magazine article was a gift to you because it
showed that you would have been right 10 years ago. But you were too dense to
understand I was giving you a way out that would give you the illusion of
maintaining your dignity.


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.

You claimed specifically that if I allowed a non-citizen to command my boat for
even a few minutes, the CG could sieze it. That is clearly false.

You haven't done any work whatsoever. You posted the rules from the
documentation center about proving ownership that have nothing to do with a
non-citizen being in command.

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal for a Canadian to do
a
bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from Hinckley.

it is still not legal for a Canadian to lease a bare-boat charter on a
documented vessel from Hinckley if the Canadian operates the vessel in an
exclusive manner for an extended period of time (two weeks or a month is not
an
extended period of time jeffies).


What's your point? I've already stated that creating complex legal structures
to hide the ownership is probably illegal for recreational vessels; it certainly
is for commercial vessels. In my first post I said:

"A non-citizen may not own (or in any way have a controlling interest in) a US
"Documented" vessel."

and the next day:

"it is patently illegal for a non-citizen of the US to own, or in
any way have a controlling interest, in a US Documented vessel. The laws go on
at great length
closing as many loopholes as the lawyers could think of. There is no exemption
for recreational
vessels. Vessels in violation certainly lose their documentation, and might be
liable for seizure."

If you want to show us the law where a certain length lease would be illegal,
feel free. I already gave you the URL for searching the US Code, it would be in
Title 46.

Now, you've just conceded that a one month bareboat charter would be legal.
Before, you were claiming that 2 hours was illegal. We're making progress.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:05:56 +0200, "BrianH" wrote:

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished.

==========================================

Very easily, ownership of the boat is through a US registered
corporation. The corporation then charters out the boat to who ever
is actually using the vessel.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:21:36 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:05:56 +0200, "BrianH" wrote:

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished.

==========================================

Very easily, ownership of the boat is through a US registered
corporation. The corporation then charters out the boat to who ever
is actually using the vessel.

While this response is demonstrably correct - who is it intended to
convince?: the rational get it, and the lunatic fringe will not be
budged....

Brian W

Please please PLLLEEEEAAASSSEEE just ignore JAXAshby. He is one of
the major contributors to wreaked.boat, and seems to be wondering into
other groups. There is no winning as he is never wrong. (though he
is at time right...)

Best (and perhaps only) was is to ignore him. Please do not feed the
animals!

-al-


On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:03:57 GMT, "Geoffrey W. Schultz"
wrote:

Jeff,

You need to realize that you're driving this argument into the ground. I
believe that the only person that is taking any exception to this is
JAXhole. Just ignore him.

Better yet, place him into your kill file. You won't see any more posts
from him. Unfortunately people will quote him in their replies, but hey,
what can you do? I've kill filed him and haven't found the news group any
less useful. As a matter of a fact, it's better.

JAXhole has no concept of normal social dialog. His standard method of
discourse is to demean people over and over. No one needs that.
Unfortunately he's one of the breed of anonymous Internet posters who acts
this way. I googled the new groups and found that he's had over 2,200
posts in the last 6 months into sailing new groups. You can't have much of
a social or cruising life if you're spending that much time posting. Then
again, if his face to face interactions are as rude as his postings, who
would want to be around him?

So do yourself a favor and ignore the guy. Kill file him and end this
useless fight. You clearly have fact on your side.

-- Geoff

"probably"??

Before that, for instance, it would not have been legal for a Canadian to
do
a
bare-boat charter on a documented vessel from Hinckley.

it is still not legal for a Canadian to lease a bare-boat charter on a
documented vessel from Hinckley if the Canadian operates the vessel in an
exclusive manner for an extended period of time (two weeks or a month is
not
an
extended period of time jeffies).


What's your point? I've already stated that creating complex legal
structures
to hide the ownership is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- probably
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

illegal for recreational vessels; it
certainly
is for commercial vessels. In my first post I said:

"A non-citizen may not own (or in any way have a controlling interest in) a
US
"Documented" vessel."

and the next day:

"it is patently illegal for a non-citizen of the US to own, or in
any way have a controlling interest, in a US Documented vessel. The laws go
on
at great length
closing as many loopholes as the lawyers could think of. There is no
exemption
for recreational
vessels. Vessels in violation certainly lose their documentation, and might
be
liable for seizure."

If you want to show us the law where a certain length lease would be illegal,
feel free. I already gave you the URL for searching the US Code, it would be
in
Title 46.

Now, you've just conceded that a one month bareboat charter would be legal.
Before, you were claiming that 2 hours was illegal. We're making progress.

however, wayne you fumb duck, **IF** you had been awake you already know that
the corporation MUST have AT LEAST 75% of stock ownership in the hands of US
citizen *****AND***** both the Chm of the Bd and the CEO MUST be US citizens
*****AND***** the board of director may not have enough non-citizens to make a
quoram (look up the word).

wayne, you are one fumb duck sophist. perhaps not a malicious as jeffies, but
none too bright anyway.

Wayne.B
Date: 10/5/2004 9:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:05:56 +0200, "BrianH" wrote:

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished.

==========================================

Very easily, ownership of the boat is through a US registered
corporation. The corporation then charters out the boat to who ever
is actually using the vessel.

and, brian, the fumb ducks will sit there smiling, like a rat eating dung.

what are you chewing on, brian?

Brian Whatcott
Date: 10/5/2004 12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:21:36 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:05:56 +0200, "BrianH" wrote:

The advertisement I cited was, as you mentioned, extremely vague about how
documentation for foreigners was accomplished.

==========================================

Very easily, ownership of the boat is through a US registered
corporation. The corporation then charters out the boat to who ever
is actually using the vessel.

While this response is demonstrably correct - who is it intended to
convince?: the rational get it, and the lunatic fringe will not be
budged....

Brian W