haha
not me
for i am satisfied that there is more than enough confusion there to go around already
& that they will need to keep clear of anywhere they expect to avoid the wrath of
& that they will need to keep inside anywhere they expect to enjoy the protection of
i just dont see how they can both avoid the wrath & enjoy the protection of the same place
at the same time
which is exactly what it sounds like their business plan is supposed to do
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
wrote:
> I wondered that too. The Indian journalists who wrote the article wouldn't be
> expected to know the difference.
>
> Still, THE BOSTON GLOBE covers the story in much greater detail at
> http://tinyurl.com/bs85c , and they quote SeaCode, Inc. as saying three miles
> out. The SeaCode, Inc. web site at http://www.sea-code.com says "3.1 miles off
> the Coast of Los Angeles."
>
> It's obvious that the ship will be of foreign registry, although no flag is
> specified. Otherwise everyone who works aboard would have to be American.
> (That's why there are almost no US-flagged merchant or cruise ships.) It is
> already clear that employees on foreign-flagged vessels, even while temporarily
> in American ports, are not subject to US federal labor laws and visa
> requirements. What laws, then are they planning to skirt? Three miles would
> get them beyond California laws (a wise move for any business), but the GLOBE
> article implies that it's sufficient to avoid US immigration laws.
>
> It might be that certain US immigration laws haven't been updated since the
> extension of US territorial waters to twelve nautical miles. More likely, the
> thinkers at Sea Code haven't updated their thinking. Still, oddly, their web
> site touts "the protection of U.S. Intellectual Property laws."
>
> As I prepare to send this, I find a Forbes article at
> http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2005/0509/048.html in which the firm's
> maritime lawyer gives the concept his backhanded approval, but it also describes
> three miles out as "international waters." I also find an article at
> http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10959 that says the ships registry will
> likely be Bahamian. It also explains that intellectual property produced at sea
> is covered by the laws of the country where it first makes land contact, and
> this will be beamed directly ashore to the USA.
>
> In any case, if the concept is viable at three miles, it should be viable at
> twelve. That's still a heck of a lot closer than India! There's contact info
> on the SeaCode web site. Someone other than I might want to lodge an inquiry.
> Good luck! :-)
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:07 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: mxus2camxus becomes maquiladora tripoint as us2caus
> makee la dora now too
>
>
> >
> >
> > hmm but doesnt this rather mean the trijunction of elmxus
> > where the 12nm territorial seas of mexico & those of the usa meet everyones
> > land
> >
> > & thus not really the international secondary california 3nm state line
> > tripoint
> > as advertised in the title
> > but rather a true world class tripoint
> > or in other words a convergence of the lines of state of only world class
> > states
> >
> > so presumably
> > the hi tech sweats will actually be situated in everyones land 160 meters
> > beyond the usa
> > rather than in american territorial seas 160 meters beyond california
> > as i first thought the article meant by saying state line
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia kallos <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> >> http://www.newz.in/large35.asp?catid=25&number=6874
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Do You Yahoo!?
> >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >