Eh? Recall that the Economist emphasized sentences of 8 years and 3
years. I'm sure you don't get even 3 years for packing lobsters in
plastic bags vs. paper boxes. But you will get 8 years for conspiracy,
smuggling and money laundering which the Economist chose not to mention.
Perhaps you didn't read all the way to the bottom of my reply?
Chuck Norcutt
John Hudson wrote:
> The question I posed has been avoided.
>
> Again, which truth did the Economist twist?
>
> Reading what the newspaper wrote and reading your longer expose leads me to
> conclude that the newspaper did not twist anything.
>
> What the newspaper chose to do was trim down on the embellishments.
>
> In fact I'd say that the newspaper followed a one time patent office clerk's
> smart advice in that 'everything should be made as simple as possible, but
> no simpler'.
>
> jh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:11 PM
> Subject: [OM] The Economist and the Lacey Act, was: for the resident
> grammarians/English-defenders, etc
>
>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 5328 (20100731) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 5330 (20100801) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|