New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I don't think OP has been detained, - his boat has (albeit sounds like it only probably has until the right paperwork has been found!), therefore he can't clear out of NZ using her.

Give the US embassy a call, might be able to get a tow from the Gunboat they send - albeit IIRC US don't send them to NZ anymore as won't declare that no nukes onboard.

Ok, so technically the boat has been detained. At the very least the embassy should be interested in the fact that an American flagged vessel has been detained. They could make an official inquiry at a higher level and ask the NZ government to explain their side of the situation. If the OP is accurately relating the situation, I would guess that he has pissed off some local bureaucrat for some reason and getting jerked around. Who knows if this guy has even contacted the "lawyers" over this. I would guess that he won't resolve the situation on his own trying to deal with the guy who detained his boat. The embassy could at least make sure the detention is legitimate and that proper procedures are being followed and at best bringing it to the attention of higher authorities might break things loose.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

(...)

Still in opua.

(...)

Doh.

It looks like the authorities may have softened up a bit. This may be the news you welcomed.

I hope you were able to correct things so that when you go for check-out again you are not stopped again for the old reasons. Use the extra time wisely. After all, it IS a wild and actually dangerous patch of water you are going to sail soon. Bigger boats with stronger crews have been smacked and, at times, lost.

When we sailed out in 2006, we cleared out on a gale day and then we sailed out while the wind was still 45 at the cape. We sailed very, very hard the first 3 or 4 days (crew of two, newly antifouled bottom and a blast new kite as soon as it was less than 25 knots). We ran out of wind somewhere mid-way to New Cal. The next gale passed just below us and we did not get affected but we could tell it was another bad one from the swell we got soon afterwards.

Take care, sail safe. The islands will be there tomorrow too.

Let us know how it goes for you. I hope to be reading your updates from a friendlier South Pacific destination one day!

barnakiel

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

And somehow you think you are the only one who knows there are different versions of nearly anything around? C'mon, it doesn't take much reading for one who likes to read before they start discovering things are not exactly what we were taught at school.

Far from it - but I do like to specialise in stating the blindingly obvious . It works when others do it for me , and sometimes even comes as a surprise. Particularly on the religion end of things I am aware that not everyone has enquiring minds - especially those who think religion(s) invented the concepts on which the modern world and morals / legal framework are based (they just used and re-branded what already worked - then polished and codified it....a very important (nay essential) social evolutionary step, but only baby steps along a path nonetheless).

FWIW, I did have to Google up a reminder on WTF the 10(ish!) Commandments actually were, even as a believer I would struggle to see how most (any?) of them would be relevant to a boat in distress......but, as you say - all that for another time and another place. Invite accepted

I arrive Wednesday .

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Who knows if this guy has even contacted the "lawyers" over this. I would guess that he won't resolve the situation on his own trying to deal with the guy who detained his boat. The embassy could at least make sure the detention is legitimate and that proper procedures are being followed and at best bringing it to the attention of higher authorities might break things loose.

My guess is that no lawyers involved ($$$). Am not against getting the Embassy involved on principal, including for the reasons you state (albeit it does kinda grate against the concept of looking after yerself), but at least the Embassy will already know who he is, if not already have him on speed-dial .

Personally I would go for the easiest route of tidying up the boat, at least in appearance - even at the price of also waving some paint around. But that easy for me to say as am not as attached to potted plants as some others may be........and of course by now a degree of goodwill may have been lost.

My take is that the NZ fella is just trying to avoid what seems to him (on the face of it) an accident (SAR) waiting to happen......and can easily foresee that landing back on his desk badly - possibly also from the US Embassy, including grieving relatives. All part of the problem when giving officialdom responsibility to say a yay or nay on anything - it tends to suffer from mission creep , including for genuine "trying to do the right thing" reasons.

[hellosailor]

"he doesn't know whether or not he is allowed to detain me after all, "
Is his name perhaps "Monty Python" ?

Really, that is grotesque, not to mention probably illegal in most civilized nations. If you don't know whether you are allowed to detain someone but you detain them anyway...Oh, the charges that can bring down on any idiot even in a banana republic. When an official can't actually cite the specific code they are enforcing--they're usually wrong to try enforcing it at all.

Sounds like you might have won a lottery ticket, alexandra. Tell your attorney that you'll agree not to hire the moron fired, if he'll agree to pay you 10% of his salary from now on.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

(...)

probably illegal in most civilized nations

(...)

That's what probable. And what is sure is that most nations are not civilised.

I assume you have visited NZ. We have visited NZ and a couple of other Western 'civilized' countries. Believe me or not but NZ was not the most uncivilised one of them ...

b.

[nimblemotors]

Thanks for the followup. If the official can't cite what rule/law he is enforcing...you might threaten to sue. I will pitch in for the legal fees, we can't let this sheee-it stand.
I would contact the US Embassy for sure, Amnesty Intl, maybe the ACLU too?

OK, with that said, please value your life, single-handing sailing is risky enough, but with a poor condition boat your chances are not good.

[captain58sailin]

Yeah, I am sure the lawyers will solve everything.

[salticrak]

Whatever the outcome regarding the bureaucratic B.S. do leave at a time you judge to be best. As I figure there is no way you will allow these people to change your plans.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Yeah, I am sure the lawyers will solve everything.

Of course they will, by the last few posts here I feel like I should keep one on retainer for situations such as this

[banaari]

Originally Posted by Maritime Transport Act 1994

Pleasure craft departing for overseas
(1)No master of a pleasure craft shall permit that pleasure craft to depart from any port in New Zealand for any place outside New Zealand unless—
(a)the Director has been notified in writing of the proposed voyage and the full name of the person who is in command of the pleasure craft; and
(b)the Director is satisfied that the pleasure craft and its safety equipment are adequate for the voyage; and
(c)the Director is satisfied that the pleasure craft is adequately crewed for the voyage; and
(d)the pleasure craft and the master comply with any relevant maritime rules.
(2)No pleasure craft shall be entitled to a certificate of clearance to depart from any port in New Zealand under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 unless subsection (1) has been satisfied.

The way I read that, the Customs and Immigration officer is actually REQUIRED to withhold clearance on safety grounds, and well within his rights to call in a safety inspector if he's got doubts.
[ Notwithstanding of course, a lawsuit from (hehehehe) the ACLU...]

BA, whatever you do, DON'T dissappear without a clearance, regardless of what the armchair brigade might suggest. Very bad karma downstream.
If you DO get hit by a visit from an MSI you should have no problem if the boat is actually seaworthy... but I suspect they've got a rather conventional view of things so maybe clean up the loose soil first...

[hellosailor]

barnakeil-
My impression of NZ is that they are at risk of sometimes being considered rational. Unlike Singapore, where chewing gum will get you caned. Or Switzerland, where spitting it out onto the sidewalk will get you stared down by every person within a hundred yards. I mean, it just doesn't strike me as the sort of place where anyone in uniform would "arrest" you, or your boat, without being pretty damn certain he was supposed to be doing exactly that.

But hey, there's always someone who got their nephew a job in a cush government bureaucracy, isn't there? And the US Embassy, frankly? Doesn't get upset by or for the occassional oddball with a problem, not anywhere, not any embassy, since the 50's.

Kinda sounds like The Dude in The Big Lebowski, casually sailing his way around the world, very much casually, very much his way. This could just mean the universe wants to detain him in NZ until he meets the sheep, ergh, girl, of his dreams.

[charliehows]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Sounds like you might have won a lottery ticket, alexandra. Tell your attorney that you'll agree not to hire the moron fired, if he'll agree to pay you 10% of his salary from now on.

mate, we dont have your sort of micky mouse legal system here, NZ is a can do sort of place, I think your man here is lucky he wasnt out there, the SARS boys already have their hands full

[sctpc]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Still in opua.

He asked if I had cleaned up my "mess" as 10 days ago when he saw the boat, it was covered in driftwood to dry in the sun and had a few dozen plants in containers.

Well you would not wish to bring wood nor plants to Australia, Big fines.

[chris_gee]

Neither customs nor immigration can withhold clearance for a foreign flagged vessel.
Maritime safety can if there is clear evidence of a danger. That does not include for example a lack of a life raft.
Maritime safety may presumably delegate a safety inspection to an inspector, but they can hardly restrict a vessel prior to an inspection, and in any event would have to give notice of the restriction and what was required to rectify it.
To say the vessel is restricted but the officer is seeking legal advice is ridiculous.
That is not to say he did not have serious doubts about the boat and perhaps the skipper.
I trust the latter is aware of the hazards of encountering two mid winter storms in the Tasman in the time his voyage will take regardless of the future weather window let alone the lack of one when he intended leaving. He may find the costs of entering Australia and inspection interesting.