Flag pirate vessel thing postulate | oceanic business alliance


I hereby ask that admin on this discussion board step in and make a consideration of ellmer promoting an operation that is clearly illegal in the usa and usa waters, namely : operating unregistered boats.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #6

this definitly has reached the no longer waste time nonsense level for me…have a nice day :blush:

keep up the seasteading core value stop fighting


Maybe it is time for some rebellious US citizen types to go construct such an unflagged vessel, park it out in EEZ, or deep sea waters along USCG patrol routes, then videotape and transmit what happens?

That would provide evidence for or against the point of views being debated.

If it turns out to be untrue, it paves the way for north pacific/atlantic seasteading initiatives.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #8

good approach if you have doubths ALLWAYS do a “pilot project” to find a feasible way…instead of “imagine monsters lurking in the dark”…of “not knowing for sure”…

(.) #9

I agree with the pragmatic approach. It coincides with my idea of little money lots of time
approach. When a seastead is of small monetary value, it can be confiscated or sunk.

I think, the authorities would not know what to do with it. Sooner or late a civilian
would develop resentful feelings against the structure. That civilian person would
complain to the authorities, and so the trouble starts. (the suits and ties show up).
Just like in that documentary, The Last Free Ride.

So at that point, I think the opposin approach would be is to sease the structure by
the authorities and charge the owner for the disposal. It might be important to
nit to declare ownership of the structure. So I can be removed from the structure,
but in absence of evidence I cannot be charged with anything else, because the
authorities woukd not be able to establish ownership of the structure.

These are also some considerations why a little money lots of time approach would
be preferable. At least at first or paralel with anything else.

Interference is mostly private driven not state driven
Breakaway Civilization | Seasteading | Ocean Colonization | Advanced Oceanic Cities | Atlantis | Enlightenment | Oceanic Business Alliance | next big thing in business
(Wilfried Ellmer) #10

… so as there is no “problem with it” all is in “good standing” and existing interference agenciecs “out of jurisdiction”…this can be a “desireable status” that can easyly be a plan A in certain contexts and host countries. In certain context the “out of jurisdiction” status combined with “political convenience to let it prosper” and mobility as backup in case the climate changes can be the strongest card a seastead has to play (as good manager have also plan B C D… and be not afraid of anything…) - the “pirate postulate” just cuts the exploration of that kind of approach and this is why we need to deal with it…for the specific US situation i recommend the study of the Lozman Case in supreme court… a home is under special protection a vessel not.

Legal uncertainty can be a asset that a good project manager can work in favor
(.) #11

Yes, somehow there are indications that opening fire is not the approach of the
authorities. Though I donnow about South America. There are the Falkland islands.
The Falklands are artic tundra, and a war was fought about the ownership.
Strange things happen.

In Mexico it is illagal for a vessel to have fire arms on board. When authorities find
fire arms, they confiscate the vessel. Authorities do not eliminate crime and criminals.
So, the authorities favor criminals by disarming the would be law obiding persons.
I do not go to Mexico. I refuse to go to a gunfight with a knife. Pick on me in US waters.
Mexican authorities carry irearms too. Why do not the Mexican authorities try to
enforce mexican laws without fire arms?

(.) #12

And piracy, by definition, requires international waters.
When it happens within territorial waters, it is a crime ot that countries jurisdiction,
and not considered, neither reported as piracy.

(.) #13

Wikipedia UNCLOS rules, I think that is where I red this.


There’s websites that report piracy, and a lot of it is in territorial waters of various countries south of Saudi Arabia (not necessarily Arabian waters).


Right, if the country has laws saying the liveaboard boat must be registered, don’t register it and see if you get arrested and lose your boat.


Lozman did not change any laws concerning homes, or uscg rules concerning boats. And the usa authorised itself to enforce it’s own laws in international waters, especially if there is a usa citizen associated with the boat. I think this is the primary reason TSI is backing the project in (where is it? and how is it going? and why isn’t it “sticky” headline news?).

(Wilfried Ellmer) #17

consider: the most important lessions are not legal - they are project setup, and interference handling related…


That guy was a dick and he fully deserved what he got, in my book.


From March 2006 to April 2009, Fane Lozman docked his houseboat at the City of Riviera Beach (“the City”) Marina and used the houseboat as his primary residence. When Lozman first docked at the marina, he signed an initial dockage agreement with the City.

On June 14, 2007, the city council passed new rules for the marina. The new rules include requirements that all houseboat owners docked at the marina have a specified amount of insurance coverage, show proof of valid registration, and sign a new dockage agreement with the City. The City sent Lozman three notice letters, in July, November, and January, describing the new requirements. Lozman claims that he did not receive any of these letters, although he did admit to receiving a fourth letter in March 2008. This fourth letter stated that the City would evict him from the Marina unless he brought the houseboat into compliance with the new regulations and paid an outstanding balance with the Marina. In March 2008, the City inspected houseboats at the Marina for compliance, and found that Lozman had not corrected the deficiencies.

All he had to do was get his registration, insurance and sign another lease agreement. Registration for his 62’ houseboat would have been around $140/year and insurance around $100/mo. That’s pocket change considering the fact that Lozman was multi-millionaire. The true fact of this matter is that the “whole deal” was retaliation by the City of Riviera Beach against Lozman since he was opposed to a private development involving The Rivera Beach Marina…

(Jonas Smith) #19

ship stopped in the Indian Ocean by a Spanish frigate that had to fire warning shots to keep the unflagged vessel from fleeing

Gaza flotilla raid

BTW those pictures you posted (the sailboat and dock) are not good examples. Ships and platforms in local waters do not need to be registered…only vessels that leave territorial waters need to be flagged.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #20

@i_is_j_smith - seriously ? you want to put that as “representative fact” what happens on the world oceans ? :smile: you seriously want a debate on that ??!!!


I do remember the Gaza flottila raid…

The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six civilian ships of the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” on 31 May 2010 in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea. Nine activists were killed in the raid. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.
The government of Israel stated that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt.[text 1] On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from speedboats[1] and helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, according to Israel’s own report, the Israeli Navy faced resistance from about 40 of the 590 passengers, including IHH activists – described in an Israeli report as a separate “hardcore group”[2][3] – who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives.[4] During the struggle, nine activists were killed including eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish American, and many were wounded. On 23 May 2014, a tenth member of the flotilla died in hospital after being in a coma for four years.[5] Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously.[4][6]
The New York Times, in an editorial, said, “At least some of the activists on the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, were seeking a confrontation – and got one.”[7][undue weight? – discuss] According to a UN report, all activist deaths were caused by gunshots, and “the circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.” [8][9] The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident. According to the UN report, several of the passengers were injured and the leg of one was fractured.[8][10] The ships were towed to Israel. Some were deported immediately, while about 600 were detained after they refused to sign deportation orders; a few of them were slated for prosecution. After international criticism, all of the detained activists were also deported.[11][12]
The raid drew widespread condemnation internationally and resulted in a deterioration of Israel–Turkey relations. Israel consequently eased its blockade on the Gaza Strip. All activists were freed, yet only the Turkish and Greek ships were returned. Israel confiscated and continues to hold the other ships, as well as most of the property (including all media recordings, which is important evidence) of over 700 passengers.[13][needs update]
There were several probes into the incident. A UNHRC report in September 2010 into the incident deemed the blockade illegal and stated that Israel’s actions were “disproportionate” and “betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality”, with evidence for “willful killing”. The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. Israel rejected the report as “biased” and “one-sided”.[8][14] The United States expressed concern about the tone, content and conclusions of the report and the European Union stated that it should be transferred to the UN Secretary-General’s investigation.[undue weight? – discuss][15][16] The UNHRC later also set up a panel of five human rights experts to examine the conclusions of the Palmer report. The panel stated that Israel’s blockade of Gaza amounted to collective punishment and was unlawful.[undue weight? – discuss][17]
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced a parallel probe in August 2010 by a four-member panel headed by Geoffrey Palmer. The Palmer report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found that the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza was legal, and that there were “serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH”.[18] The report also found that Israel’s army used excessive force while the flotilla was still in international waters, and concluded that the degree of force used against the Mavi Marmara was “excessive and unreasonable”,[19] and that the way Israel treated detained crew members violated international human rights law.[19]
Israel has offered Turkey $20 million in compensation for the raid.[20] On 22 March 2013, in a half-hour telephone exchange between Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the former apologized on behalf of his nation; Erdoğan accepted the apology and both agreed to enter into further discussions.[21][22] As of May 2014, although several points of agreement had been discussed between the two nations, no agreement has been finalized.[23][24

What a bunch of crap.

(Jonas Smith) #22

You said ships don’t shoot at each other. They do. Therefore you are wrong.

You might say that it doesn’t happen very often, but you didn’t say that. You said they don’t, and they do. So your statement is incorrect.

(Jonas Smith) #23

It most certainly was a bunch of crap, and incredibly illegal. I can kinda understand the point of the Israelis…they were trying to stop illegal arms from getting into their country and this group of ships was obviously looking for a fight. But the Israelis could have handled it far better than they did.


From Shots fired to stop Scud ship :

Although the ship did not have a flag, the Spanish official said the 21 crew members were North Korean. One U.S. senior official told CNN the ship appeared to be a "stateless vessel" and that there was not much official paperwork on board.

The Spanish official said a Cambodian flag was discovered on board, although he said the Spanish Defense Ministry considers the vessel a “pirate ship” operating illegally.

Hmm, just like the usa does.