Unbridled Stupidity and the Viking Longship

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

That is not the real issue, instead the CG's lack of common sense is..

Perhaps so, but also if the captain had been on the ball he would have checked on all authorities involved in the passage on the Lakes and had some idea in advance of the possible problems.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

That is not the real issue, instead the CG's lack of common sense is..

Of course it's the issue. Had the principals of the voyage contacted the proper authorities in both countries prior to arriving (as anybody planning to sail across an international border might reasonably be expected to do), this problem would never have come up.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Dunno for sure but I believe it's not a law instead a rule set by an official authority. Don't see either how a boat capable to be beached at full speed and if needed towable with man power on dry land could be ship wrecked just becouse of lacking a pilot..
Not saying CG rules are outdated, it's the vessel which is not what these rules were written for..

BR Teddy

I recall them saying something to that effect about the titanic

Then again, just because the ship could survive, doesn't mean there won't be a lot of injuries.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I have two statements in regards to the above response:
1.) It is obvious that you did not read any of the links provided or Mike
O'Reilly's post 17 which repeated the fact that the Captain of
Draken Harald had assurances from the Great Lakes Pilots Association
that there would be no problems with a pilot requirement before they
left Norway for the Great Lakes.
Ignoring the fact they are a Canadian organization, when did they get authority to set the rules?

2.) The creators of our US legal system in their infinite wisdom understood
that all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation and change
which is why we have a judiciary to interpret the laws as they
were written and to apply common sense to their nuances and intent
based on the evidence presented in every case. A strict
interpretation of the law ,as you propose, has never been a
trademark of the US legal system but rather representative of
monarchies and dictatorships.
The judiciary rules where ambiguity in the law exists. Where the rule is clear, their job is to enforce the law. What you describe is referred to as legislating from the bench and runs counter to good jurisprudence.


However, in this case, it was not only
the law which was distorted ,since the longship was not a commercial
vessel carrying cargo, but also the stranglehold of the unions which
will always be inflexible when there is a monetary gain in the form
of a required union employee at the tune of $400. per hour. And, there
was no attempt by the USCG to alter or waive this
absurd requirement to allow the Draken Harald to continue its journey.
But then again, how fortunate to have injected an additional $400K
into our ailing economy at the expense of a goodwill ambassador from
Noway engaged in a historic, educational opportunity for Americans.
There is an old saying that aptly applies in this situation to some:
"You just can't see the forest through the trees." Good luck and
safe sailing.

If you can't become a pilot without being in the union, that's wrong but a much different issue. But it still isn't justification for special treatment.

[rognvald]

"Sorry but I have to disagree with the statement that "all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation". Not saying this isn't true in this situation but it is absolutely not true for all laws. There have been many laws and resulting problems in the US where the judiciary had no leeway in applying the law, often to the detriment of logic, the spirit of the law and impact on citizens and society." Skipmac


Skip,
At any time in our history when the judiciary "had no leeway in applying the law" is was not a fault of our US legal system and its construction but rather the fact that the court did not choose to do so for political or personal reasons since our US legal system allows the courts to interpret the statutes according to the facts of the case, its unique circumstances and case law. This can be clearly seen in cases involving guns and abortions and their various interpretations and differences among the states. In re: your second question, any reasonable person would infer that assurances from the Great Lakes Pilot Associations would refer to all the Great Lakes not just the Canadian sectors. But, even it this were an oversight by the Captain/organizers of the expedition, a reasonable person would assume that adjustments/provisions would be made to allow the expedition to continue without the $400K plus additional expense of a union Coast Pilot-intended primarily for ships carrying commercial cargo. This, in my opinion, is just another example of an inflexible law interpreted by inflexible dullard civil servants that disregards the special circumstances of the case and disallows the benefit to the American public. Again, it is an example of not seeing the "Forest through the trees." Good luck and safe sailing.

[skipmac]

Respectfully I still cannot agree. I think Valhalla stated it better than I.

The judiciary rules where ambiguity in the law exists. Where the rule is clear, their job is to enforce the law. What you describe is referred to as legislating from the bench and runs counter to good jurisprudence. [my comment, "and runs counter to the law".]


In the example I described there are (or were) laws (usually state level but some Federal) with very specific mandatory sentencing requirements for certain crimes. In a case that falls within those laws the judiciary does not have any leeway in the sentence they imposed but must follow the law. There are numerous cases where the sentences clearly violated the beliefs and opinions of the judge and the judge complained very publicly, stated the sentence required was unreasonable and if there was any option at all he/she would impose a lesser sentence but the law allowed no leeway. In these cases if a lesser sentence had been imposed by that judge it would have been negated by law and the judge censured if not disbarred for violating the law.

Back to the issue at hand, in this case I cannot say whether or not the USCG has any leeway in their decision. It all depends on how the law is written, period.

Regardless, it seems clear to me that the principals that arranged the voyage regrettably screwed up. Perhaps it wasn't clear to them that the Association only controlled Canadian waters but in arranging a voyage and project of this magnitude that is a detail that should have been confirmed. Someone dropped the ball and it's costing them.

I do not disagree that the pilots union and/or the USCG may be acting poorly, stupidly, bureaucratically, whatever but the long ship group has to accept that they didn't do a thorough due diligence.

I still don't understand why the boat was registered as a commercial vessel. Any comment on this?

One final thought, has anyone approached the pilots to ask if one would consider donating time and services for a worthy project?

Originally Posted by rognvald

Skip,
At any time in our history when the judiciary "had no leeway in applying the law" is was not a fault of our US legal system and its construction but rather the fact that the court did not choose to do so for political or personal reasons since our US legal system allows the courts to interpret the statutes according to the facts of the case, its unique circumstances and case law. This can be clearly seen in cases involving guns and abortions and their various interpretations and differences among the states. In re: your second question, any reasonable person would infer that assurances from the Great Lakes Pilot Associations would refer to all the Great Lakes not just the Canadian sectors. But, even it this were an oversight by the Captain/organizers of the expedition, a reasonable person would assume that adjustments/provisions would be made to allow the expedition to continue without the $400K plus additional expense of a union Coast Pilot-intended primarily for ships carrying commercial cargo. This, in my opinion, is just another example of an inflexible law interpreted by inflexible dullard civil servants that disregards the special circumstances of the case and disallows the benefit to the American public. Again, it is an example of not seeing the "Forest through the trees." Good luck and safe sailing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rognvald

"Sorry but I have to disagree with the statement that "all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation". Not saying this isn't true in this situation but it is absolutely not true for all laws. There have been many laws and resulting problems in the US where the judiciary had no leeway in applying the law, often to the detriment of logic, the spirit of the law and impact on citizens and society." Skipmac


Skip,
At any time in our history when the judiciary "had no leeway in applying the law" is was not a fault of our US legal system and its construction but rather the fact that the court did not choose to do so for political or personal reasons since our US legal system allows the courts to interpret the statutes according to the facts of the case, its unique circumstances and case law. This can be clearly seen in cases involving guns and abortions and their various interpretations and differences among the states. In re: your second question, any reasonable person would infer that assurances from the Great Lakes Pilot Associations would refer to all the Great Lakes not just the Canadian sectors. But, even it this were an oversight by the Captain/organizers of the expedition, a reasonable person would assume that adjustments/provisions would be made to allow the expedition to continue without the $400K plus additional expense of a union Coast Pilot-intended primarily for ships carrying commercial cargo. This, in my opinion, is just another example of an inflexible law interpreted by inflexible dullard civil servants that disregards the special circumstances of the case and disallows the benefit to the American public. Again, it is an example of not seeing the "Forest through the trees." Good luck and safe sailing.

That is one wild misunderstanding of the role of the court system. Of course there are plenty of rouge judges out their legislating from the bench so we can maybe understand why you don't understand the difference between their role interpreting the vague parts of the law vs just making it up as they go along.

Again the pilot organization is neither, legislature, enforcement nor judiciary. May as well ask your kids kindergarten teacher. It will have just as much authority when the real authorities ask where your pilot is.

[rognvald]

"That is one wild misunderstanding of the role of the court system." Valhalla


Really? It is based upon 240 years of accumulated American Jurisprudence. I suggest you read our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, US Common Law and US Federal Jurisprudence. Our written and case law cannot be clearer. However, we are straying from the topic at hand, once again, since the argument you are proposing is an excellent example of circular reasoning/logical fallacy and, therefore, we must ask our readers to return to the real principle at hand and to make a choice: is it a benefit to the US to allow this educational trip to continue without the burden of a 400K plus payment to "Coast Pilots" as witnessed by the governments of Iceland, Greenland or Canada, or is it a greater benefit to the US to disallow the journey into the Great Lakes or, in a worst-case scenario, pay the required $400k USCG union pilot fee to continue? For me, the answer is simple . . . logic and reason would prevail over a strict and inflexible reading of the law. Law and Order? I think you're watching too much TV! Good luck and safe sailing.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by rognvald

"That is one wild misunderstanding of the role of the court system." Valhalla


Really? It is based upon 240 years of accumulated American Jurisprudence. I suggest you read our US Constitution, Bill of Rights, US Common Law and US Federal Jurisprudence. Our written and case law cannot be clearer. However, we are straying from the topic at hand, once again, since the argument you are proposing is an excellent example of circular reasoning/logical fallacy and, therefore, we must ask our readers to return to the real principle at hand and to make a choice: is it a benefit to the US to allow this educational trip to continue without the burden of a 400K plus payment to "Coast Pilots" as witnessed by the governments of Iceland, Greenland or Canada, or is it a greater benefit to the US to disallow the journey into the Great Lakes or, in a worst-case scenario, pay the required $400k USCG union pilot fee to continue? For me, the answer is simple . . . logic and reason would prevail over a strict and inflexible reading of the law. Law and Order? I think you're watching too much TV! Good luck and safe sailing.

Wow, you made it even crazier. No, the constitution does not say the judiciary can make law or override law if they don't like it and case law also doesn't support your idea. They can interpret law in so much as the law is vague or if different laws conflict. They do not simply override law because they don't like the law. Making false claims about the constitution and case law doesn't make it true.

As it relates to this subject, the economic benefit, which you are grossly overstating, is not relevant. The law is intended to be applied regardless of economic benefit. A billionaire should not get away with murder because they have money (it may happen but that is a failure of the system not something the system should aspire to).

The point still stands, this guy failed to check with the relevant authorities and secure an exemption prior to arriving, that makes it his responsibility.

I'm reminded of a saying, "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."

[TeddyDiver]

Something is rotten in the state..
Great Lakes interests sue US Coast Guard over pilots’ fees | JOC.com

[rognvald]

"Wow, you made it even crazier. No, the constitution does not say the judiciary can make law or override law if they don't like it and case law also doesn't support your idea." Valhalla


V,
Where did I say the judiciary can make law in any of my above statements?
What I did say was that " our US legal system allows the courts to interpret the statutes according to the facts of the case, its unique circumstances and case law." This is clearly a misreading on your part. And, in regards to the US Constitution of which you claim such learned expertise, Article 3, Section 2 states the role of the courts quite clearly:

Article 3
Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This, even to a layman, should be quite clear. However, once again, we are straying from the original intent of this post and I, from now on, will continue to post only on the updates to this farcical case of USCG stupidity . . . unbridled, that is.. and will leave the rest to those interested in this "law and order" sideline. I do, Valhalla, get that you're a strict adherent to the laws as written and that in your courtroom there would be no extenuating circumstances ,in matters large and small, that would ever circumvent a strict, arithmetic reading of the law. . . something of which even Judge Ginsburg might not approve. Good luck, safe sailing and . . . a shout out for "Law and Order!"

[rognvald]

UPDATE: This morning, Draken Harald Hafargre has just exited the Straits of Mackinaw en route to Beaver Island, Michigan. They will be in Chicago at Navy Pier this Wednesday through Sunday for the Tall Ships celebration. Tickets are $25.00 on Thursday and $50.00 Friday through Sunday and will allow access to all the Tall Ships on display. We will be there on Thursday and hope everyone in the area will be able to attend and support this great historic project. A reminder: Please leave battle shields and axes at home. We already have enough violence in Chicago. Good luck and safe sailing. Captain Rognvald--a genetic throwback to 1000 AD.

[rognvald]

UPDATE**********************************

Here's the latest communication to the petitioner from the USCG in response to the petition to allow Draken Harald Hafargre continue its journey throughout the Great Lakes without a coast pilot. Judge for yourself!

District 9 Response to Draken Petition

Jay Turbes-s
United States
JUL 23, 2016 — I received the following response from the Coast Guard District 9 Webmaster -- the only link I found for submission of the petition and comments submitted last Tuesday:

"Greetings Mr. Shaw,

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Ninth Coast Guard District with your petition to redefine and rescind pilotage requirement for the Norwegian vessel Draken Harald Harfagre. As a member of RADM Ryan’s staff, please consider your petition as being delivered.

Kindest regards,

LT Galen Varon
Webmaster
USCG District 9 (drt)
Cleveland, OH 44199"

[rognvald]

****Update:
Draken Harald Hafagre, Viking Longship, will have to return to Norway without visiting Duluth, Minnesota since the USCG will still require an additional $250K in pilot fees to complete its historic trip. They are currently in Green Bay, Wisconsin and cannot afford to go further. This is unfortunate since Duluth was one of the active participants in support of their journey and home to a large population of Scandinavian-Americans. Fair winds and safe passage to this beautiful ship and intrepid group of sailors. Rognvald