Cruisers & Sailing Forums (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/)
-   Construction, Maintenance & Refit (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f55/)
-   -   Seahawks islands 44 issues (https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f55/seahawks-islands-44-issues-152532.html)

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 16:31

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234423)

You think the US District Attorney brings an indictment based on bullsh*t? They all pleaded guilty. :rolleyes:

https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/indus...d-coating-case

Re-read the article you linked. The parent company plead guilty to conspiracy, not Sea Hawk. Sea Hawk pled guilty to distribution of an unregistered pesticide, as was stated upthread.
Apparently the parent company took Sea Hawk along for the ride, willingly or unwillingly, because if they had been in the original conspiracy, they would have had the same fate. Only the parent company met the burden of proof on that front.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 16:32

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wingssail (Post 3234424)
Well fstbttms, I don't know if you are purposefully being disingenuous or are just uninformed.

Now who's being disingenuous? Your initial post flat out stated that beginning next year, copper-based anti fouling paints would not be available in Washington but that is simply not the case. As I pointed out (and you just confirmed), the earliest a ban would go into effect (if indeed, one goes into effect at all) will be 2026. And the reason it keeps getting pushed back is twofold: 1.- There are no effective non-copper alternatives and 2.- studies are showing that copper loading in our waterways may not be the problem earlier studies showed it is.

As for California's situation- Your description of what the regulations said and do is erroneous. The new regulations did not restrict in any way how much copper an anti fouling paint product may contain. What they did do is determine how much copper a paint can legally leach into the water. That led to a reformulation of some high leaching products so that they could come into compliance. But otherwise, it is business as usual in California's anti fouling paint market with many products continuing to contain 50-75% copper by weight. And in fact, the two paints that I have long recommended as being the most effective of their respective types did not require reformulation at all. As far as California boat owners and hull cleaners are concerned, the new regulations were implemented without notice or deleterious effect.

BTW- as a board member of the California Professional Divers Association, I was asked to confer with the Department of Pesticide Regulation about these new rules. I assure you that I am not uniformed.

You also mentioned the situation in Marina del Rey. The idea of banning copper-based paints in that marina has been tossed around for some years now. But it is such a politically unpopular idea that has never gotten any real traction. And even if it were to come to pass there or in the few other harbors that are significantly impaired for copper (Newport Bay, Shelter Island Yacht Basin), those would be decisions made at the regional or municipal level. They would not constitute a statewide ban, which is the topic of our discussion.

I'm not going to debate you further about commercial shipping or the regulations under which they fall. You can bitch and moan all you want about how unfair it is to recreational boaters that large vessels are handled differently but it's a case of apples and oranges. That isn't going to change no matter how much you whine about it it and in any case, it really falls outside of my purview as a boat maintenance professional.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 16:37

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234454)
Re-read the article you linked. The parent company plead guilty to conspiracy, not Sea Hawk. Sea Hawk pled guilty to distribution of an unregistered pesticide, as was stated upthread.
Apparently the parent company took Sea Hawk along for the ride, willingly or unwillingly, because if they had been in the original conspiracy, they would have had the same fate. Only the parent company met the burden of proof on that front.

You don't have a grasp of the situation. The Sea Hawk executives (actually the New Nautical Coatings executives) went to prison because the "parent company" and Sea Hawk are differentiated by paper only. Sea Hawk is not a subsidiary of large, faceless corporation. Sea Hawk is merely the name of the paint products with which we are familiar. New Nautical Coatings is the name of the company that manufactures the paints. But the whole outfit is a small, family-owned company.

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 16:41

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234460)
Then why did the Sea Hawk executives go to prison? I'll tell you why- because the "parent company" and Sea Hawk are differentiated by paper only. Sea Hawk is not a subsidiary of large, faceless corporation. The whole outfit is a small, family-owned company.

The executives of Sea Hawk went to prison for distribution of an unregistered pesticide. Served less time and paid substantially less in fines. It's all in the article you linked. The evidence did not support that Sea Hawk was part of the conspiracy indictment. I never said they were innocent, I just stated they were not found guilty of everything they were indicted on.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 17:28

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234466)
The executives of Sea Hawk went to prison for distribution of an unregistered pesticide. Served less time and paid substantially less in fines. It's all in the article you linked. The evidence did not support that Sea Hawk was part of the conspiracy indictment. I never said they were innocent, I just stated they were not found guilty of everything they were indicted on.

You don't get it. Sea Hawk/New Nautical Coatings- same, same, all samey same. When we say "Sea Hawk executives" we are talking about the New Nautical Coatings executives. They are the same people. Sea Hawk is merely one of the products of the company that these guys run.

From the website:

American Made and Owned Manufacturer of Sea Hawk Paints for over 40 years, New Nautical Coatings, Inc. was established in 1978 and is dedicated to bringing only the highest quality products to today’s mariner.

And BTW- they didn't only plead guilty to selling an unregistered pesticide. I know you like to spin this as some sort of misdemeanor but it's not. They committed federal felony offenses.

David Norrie pleaded guilty to “willfully conspiring to corruptly obstruct the due and proper administration of law under which a pending proceeding was being had before the Environmental Protection Agency.”

And in addition to the personal prison time these guys all did, the company itself was fined $1.2 million dollars.

https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/indus...d-coating-case

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 17:34

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms (Post 3234512)
You don't get it. [/I][/B]

What I do get, is if the prosecutor had the evidence the indictment suggested, all three men would have pled guilty to conspiracy. As it unfolded, conspiracy only applied to the parent company.

Bycrick 16-09-2020 17:57

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
No, you don’t get it. "Fraud and conspiracy to make and distribute an unregistered pesticide." Do "we" want to do business with "convicted felons?" If we follow your logic, then every dealer of coke, or meth, or grass would be in the same ball park. Just because they plead guilty doesn’t even prove much. Every day in the papers there’s some poor schlump who pleaded guilty rather than take a chance on the system actually working the way it was supposed to. So, even at worst, they did the crime, they did the time. Are they any worse than your neighborhood coke dealer? Just because you believe that all right-thinking people should care about what you do, doesn’t make it so.

fstbttms 16-09-2020 18:43

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234519)
What I do get, is if the prosecutor had the evidence the indictment suggested, all three men would have pled guilty to conspiracy. As it unfolded, conspiracy only applied to the parent company.

You're not an attorney and neither am I. But I've watched enough TV to know what a plea deal is. And all four (not three) of these guys got one. They were all initially charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, wire fraud and sale of unregistered pesticide. Additionally, David and Erik Norrie and New Nautical Coatings were charged with obstruction of justice. The Norries and Tommie Craft were also charged with misuse of a government seal. The US District Attorney didn't bring these charges because they weren't confident they had the evidence. But the government settled for an easy, quick win, as happens every single day.

So it was not just the company that did the deed and the players were just swept up in it. This is a small, family-run company and they all knew what they were doing. They knew to the tune of two million dollars, which is what they garnered selling an illegal product while lying to their customers and the government about it. Justify and rationalize their crimes all you want. These guys are criminal scumbags who are knowingly and intentionally killing the environment and I'll tell anybody who will listen all about it.

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 18:53

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I am not justifying anything that was done. I just pointed out if they had the same evidence against all parties, all would have gotten similar deals. As it happened, one received significantly higher punishment than the others (unless I missed it, three were named in the article)
The article states they pled guilty to different crimes. You provided the article. I !!NEVER!! suggested they should not have been punished.
You are getting all bent out of shape over nothing. I was just curious if the guilty pleas matched the indictment, and for 2(3?) they didn't

fstbttms 16-09-2020 18:58

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline (Post 3234567)
I was just curious if the guilty pleas matched the indictment, and for 2(3?) they didn't

You clearly don't understand what a "plea deal" is. These guys pleaded guilty to lesser offenses.

"A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or "no contest"in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence acceptable to the defense."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...a-bargain.html

S/V Adeline 16-09-2020 19:13

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I fully understand what a plea deal is, and I know any prosecutor worth a crap only lets you plea so low.
One was fined 1.2m, the others only $*up to* 200,000, according to the article. That and the fact they pled guilty to a different crime suggests some evidence was lacking against those 2. I never suggested anyone was innocent, but I highly doubt the prosecutor said, well, let's punish one and let the others off lightly. They had more evidence against the top dog, which only makes sense.

Supers0nic 30-10-2020 08:07

Re: Seahawks islands 44 issues
 
I applied Seahawk 44 in August 2019. Every time I think itís time to clean the bottom there is nothing to do. Only a little bit of scum at the waterline.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.