H2Andy
Contributor
good job on digging it up, though
alas, more than a simple look at it, that stuff is greek to me
alas, more than a simple look at it, that stuff is greek to me
Legal & other issues from SG Mishap
- Thread starter shakeybrainsurgeon
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Boatlawyer
Contributor
H2Andy:
we both jumped the gun on the tax statement.
And, I was only responding in kind to your prior comments, A, don't dish if you can't take, buddy.:14:
H2Andy
Contributor
well ... i never took cheap shots at ya
you dont' know what else was going on last night on my end when i was trying to look that case up. i can look a case up in 3 seconds flat, man!
i think i've been very respectful of your position, even though i've indicated my disagreement. there's no need to make things personal
you dont' know what else was going on last night on my end when i was trying to look that case up. i can look a case up in 3 seconds flat, man!
i think i've been very respectful of your position, even though i've indicated my disagreement. there's no need to make things personal
H2Andy:
Break down of "Other Investment Income"
STATEMENT 1
DESCRIPTION..................................AMOUNT
ANNUAL MEDALLIONS.........................27,327.
TIB INTEREST......................................20.
LIFETIME MEDALLIONS.......................7,100.
TOTAL TO FORM 990, PART I, LINE 7...34,447
LIFETIME MEDALLIONS.......................7,100.
TOTAL TO FORM 990, PART I, LINE 7...34,447
Do I get the cookie for reading that right?
H2Andy
Contributor
Boatlawyer:
yep, i see it (it's page 15). that was the "investment income" they listed, about $34,000
at least we know they sell the medallions themselves and have no real assets
good luck going after them
CBulla:
show-off
Boatlawyer
Contributor
H2Andy:well ... i never took cheap shots at ya
you dont' know what else was going on last night on my end when i was trying to look that case up. i can look a case up in 3 seconds flat, man!
i think i've been very respectful of your position, even though i've indicated my disagreement. there's no need to make things personal
"some clients, you know, don't take well to legal extorsion and do litigate. and when they do, they need real litigators, not transactional lawyers who've never been in front of a judge, telling them what to do ... sorry..."
Some people may have thought THAT comment was a cheap shot, too. I just figured we were both talking smack, bud. Sorry, if I hurt your feelings (you ARE a guy, right? I thought I met you here in FLL).:froggy:
H2Andy
Contributor
yes we did meet once a while back ... and yes, i am a guy last time i checked
and yes, that could be interpreted as a cheap shot, sorry
(do they have a white flag simile?)
and yes, that could be interpreted as a cheap shot, sorry
(do they have a white flag simile?)
1. Maritime Law applies... that's federal, not state law. See Carlisle v. Carnival decided a few weeks ago by the Florida Supreme Court.
2. "Attractive Nuisance" applies only to children.
3. DOHSA would apply and severely limits what can be recovered by the victim's estate.
3. Most states or the Federal Gov try to exercise jurisdiction over both wrecks and artificial reefs. I am unaware of any on-going "maintenance" or "repair" to the Spiegle Grove by the government. Once placed, I am unaware of any duty on the part of the government to "maintain or repair" a wreck/artificial reef. It seems to me that Boatlawyer is either assuming or trying to create such a duty to repair/maintain the wreck/reef. At this point, we have no facts to establish that the government has made any effort to "maintain or repair" the SG. The real issue is would a federal court impose a duty on the government to maintain/repair the artificial reefs and wrecks it claims?
4. As any of us know who dive here, it would be impossible to maintain/repair these wrecks/reef so that they would present no risks to those who choose to explore them. Wrecks deterioriate over time and eventually will collapse into rubble. People and remove parts of the wreck. As on the Doria, people and cut their way into the wreck to gain access. The wreck/artificial reef get more dangerous as time goes by.
5. As "maintianing or repairing" the wreck/artificial reef would be impossible, as would "closing" the offending location, it would seem unlikely that the court would impose a duty that would be impossible to carry out.
2. "Attractive Nuisance" applies only to children.
3. DOHSA would apply and severely limits what can be recovered by the victim's estate.
3. Most states or the Federal Gov try to exercise jurisdiction over both wrecks and artificial reefs. I am unaware of any on-going "maintenance" or "repair" to the Spiegle Grove by the government. Once placed, I am unaware of any duty on the part of the government to "maintain or repair" a wreck/artificial reef. It seems to me that Boatlawyer is either assuming or trying to create such a duty to repair/maintain the wreck/reef. At this point, we have no facts to establish that the government has made any effort to "maintain or repair" the SG. The real issue is would a federal court impose a duty on the government to maintain/repair the artificial reefs and wrecks it claims?
4. As any of us know who dive here, it would be impossible to maintain/repair these wrecks/reef so that they would present no risks to those who choose to explore them. Wrecks deterioriate over time and eventually will collapse into rubble. People and remove parts of the wreck. As on the Doria, people and cut their way into the wreck to gain access. The wreck/artificial reef get more dangerous as time goes by.
5. As "maintianing or repairing" the wreck/artificial reef would be impossible, as would "closing" the offending location, it would seem unlikely that the court would impose a duty that would be impossible to carry out.
So... let me get this straight... according to all of this, if I open Cafepress web site and sell t-shirts that say, "I dove Spegal Grove"... and maybe a coffee cup or mousepad or two... I could become 'legally liable' to maintain the Spegal Grove simply because I made a few pence off the name???
Hummm... seems kinda' thin to me...
... or... (and here's a chance for any copyright attny's out there to jump in....), would I be VIOLATING COPYRIGHT or any other ownership rights to the name, image and property associated with Spegal Grove and therefore subject to massive imprisonment and fines???
... just wanderin'...
(dang... Maj75 just hit question #1 already... thanks dude...)
Hummm... seems kinda' thin to me...
... or... (and here's a chance for any copyright attny's out there to jump in....), would I be VIOLATING COPYRIGHT or any other ownership rights to the name, image and property associated with Spegal Grove and therefore subject to massive imprisonment and fines???
... just wanderin'...
(dang... Maj75 just hit question #1 already... thanks dude...)
H2Andy
Contributor
maj75:
that's a new one to me. do you mean OSHA?
if so, OSHA only applies to safety in the workplace. these guys weren't employed by anyone to go into the Grove.
Similar threads
