Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

[Greegor]

G > The BP spill makes it clear to lots of
G > US Citizens that oil companies need
G > to be fully liable with no limit.

G > As far as I am concerned, if the Republicans
G > want to maintain this liability limit, they
G > are doomed in November as much as
G > the Democrats.

krw > So you, in fact, support ex post facto laws.

How did the above paragraph lead
to your mistaken conclusion?

G > No.

I know of a case where Family Court Judges
throughout California were getting paid from
both the state and their local county.
They all routinely got paychecks from
TWO sources.

Irrelevant.

Do try to develop an attention span.

An attorney fighting his own battles with
their corruption pointed this out and proved
that they were all in fact getting paid in an illegal
way and that it created more conflict of
interest where the Judge was motivated
by this situation NOT to decide against the
county (which pays them!) and created a
tendency to give the prosecutor (county
which pays them) the benefit of every doubt.

Irrelevant.

It's about WHY the multiple payments
SHOULD continue to be illegal.
Conflict of interest.
WHY this ex-post facto law is wrong.

G > California had to pass a law to make this
G > outright illegal payment scheme LEGAL
G > retroactively.

I notice you didn't say THAT was irrelevant.
It was an example of an ex post facto law
to make something legal retroactively
that was in fact illegal but routine.

What I find particularly interesting about that
is that every one of the Judges who got paid
this way should have known it was illegal.

Ignorance of the law, when it comes to Judges,
would be a really lame defense.

So you do approve of ex post facto laws.

Nope. They are unconstitutional for a reason.

Inequality in the enforcement and prosecution
of laws is already a huge problem in our
Family Court systems nationwide.

krw > Irrelevant.

How could a direct example of the effects
of an ex-post facto law be irrelevant to
the subject of ex-post facto laws you brought up?

CPS caseworkers ROUTINELY commit
perjury to make cases that actually
had no basis in fact. They basically never
get prosecuted for perjury no matter how
aggregious or blatant it is.

Irrelevant.

Directly effected by ex-post facto COUNTY
payment of Judges.

krw > What's your opinion of Bills of Attaineder?

In relation to the oil spill, who do you think would
be in line for a legislated death penalty?

Or did you mean "bill of pains and penalties" ?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

"U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed .
Bills of Attainder

''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature,
as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of
high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in
the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a
milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains
and penalties. . "

krw > You didn't answer the question.

Whose execution would the question be about?

WHY did you ask this question regarding the oil spill?

krw > Should they be passed ex post facto?

krw > Not this one.

krw > ...or just in this particular case?

G > We're just lucky that BP voluntary pays
G > for PR reasons, so far.

krw > Indeed. Obummer wants to kill that goose.

G > WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
G > every bit of cleanup and lost income?

krw > I don't. Certainly *not* the way it's being done.

Given the stupid liability cap, Obama's
shakedown might be a good idea.

G > A point in their favor is that the location
G > of this oil rig was determined by the
G > US Government. BP wanted to drill in
G > shallower water, but the US Government
G > refused.

G > I'd like to know more about who and why.

krw > That's easy. Who gave them the permit?

Let me know whan you get an answer to your FOIA request.

What? You think everything government does
is open to your scrutiny?

The gap between what should be public
information and what IS public information
is much wider than most people realize.

Post a scan of the permit when you get it.

It will be an important bit of history under
the circumstances.

G > Obama halted all deep water drilling, while
G > his good buddy Soros got a boost through
G > a billion dollar grant for PetroBras (half owned
G > by Soros) to prospect for oil near Brazil,
G > but REALLY REALLY deep!

krw > Surprised?

G >The absurdity of stopping US deep water drilling
G > but giving a GRANT to a BRAZILIAN company
G > to drill even DEEPER WATER drilling is sickening.

krw > Obummer.

G > But it's good for Soros who owns a lot of PetroBras.
G > The fix is in.

krw > What gave you the first clue?

I think it was the D in democrat.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:53:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

So you admit that I'm right (you can't refute) but want me to look up the
obvious? Gotcha.

Squirm bitch. Regardless of whether you are ever right or wrong, you
squirm like a little bitch.

 

[Greegor]

On Jun 23, 7:03 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:49:14 +0100, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:26:51 -0700, Greegor wrote:

WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
every bit of cleanup and lost income?

Joe Barton, apparently.

JT > There's no question that BP should, and will, pay.

JT > The only issue is that the method was via Chicago-style thuggery,
JT > rather than our historical due-process.

I don't like the shakedown method used,
but considering that the congress critters
gave oil companies a gift of a 75 Mil liabliity
cap law, I am kind of glad that BP is handing
over the money.

I am more worried that the bad means
of obtaining the 20 Billion might sour the
deal for the other 30+ Billion it will take.

The US Government is somewhat toothless
on this because of the liability cap law.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

You asked

Top posting, Usenet retard!

 

[Greegor]

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

But my basic question is, when it comes
to something SO DISASTROUS, what is
the point of ANY liability limit??

Could you explain that to me?

In a FREE MARKET, wouldn't the monstrous
liability motivate them to take precautions
more seriously?

So far, just skimming, the part about replacing
TAX REVENUE lost as a result of a spill
caught my eye! LOL

I hadn't even considered the impact such
a disaster could have on TAX COLLECTING! LOL



http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC2702

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[www.gpoaccess.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]
[CITE: 33USC2702]

[Page 644-645]

TITLE 33--NAVIGATION AND NAVIGABLE WATERS

CHAPTER 40--OIL POLLUTION

SUBCHAPTER I--OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION


Sec. 2702. Elements of liability


(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject
to
the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a
facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial
threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the
removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of this section
that result from such incident.

(b) Covered removal costs and damages

(1) Removal costs

The removal costs referred to in subsection (a) of this
section
are--
(A) all removal costs incurred by the United States, a
State, or an Indian tribe under subsection (c), (d), (e), or
(l)
of section 1321 of this title, under the Intervention on the
High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.), or under State law;
and
(B) any removal costs incurred by any person for acts
taken
by the person which are consistent with the National
Contingency
Plan.

(2) Damages

The damages referred to in subsection (a) of this section are
the following:

(A) Natural resources

Damages for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss
of
use of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs of
assessing the damage, which shall be recoverable by a United
States trustee, a State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or
a
foreign trustee.

(B) Real or personal property

Damages for injury to, or economic losses resulting from
destruction of, real or personal property, which shall be
recoverable by a claimant who owns or leases that property.

(C) Subsistence use

Damages for loss of subsistence use of natural resources,
which shall be recoverable by any claimant who so uses
natural
resources which have been injured, destroyed, or lost,
without
regard to the ownership or management of the resources.

(D) Revenues

Damages equal to the net loss of taxes, royalties, rents,
fees, or net profit shares due to the injury, destruction, or
loss of real property, personal property, or natural
resources,
which shall be recoverable by the Government of the United
States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof.

(E) Profits and earning capacity

Damages equal to the loss of profits or impairment of
earning capacity due to the injury, destruction, or loss of
real
property, personal property, or natural resources, which
shall
be recoverable by any claimant.

(F) Public services

Damages for net costs of providing increased or
additional
public services during or after removal activities, including
protection from fire, safety, or health hazards, caused by a
discharge of oil, which shall be recoverable by a State, or a
political subdivision of a State.

(c) Excluded discharges

This subchapter does not apply to any discharge--
(1) permitted by a permit issued under Federal, State, or
local
law;
(2) from a public vessel; or
(3) from an onshore facility which is subject to the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.).

(d) Liability of third parties

(1) In general

(A) Third party treated as responsible party

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in any case in
which
a responsible party establishes that a discharge or threat of
a
discharge and the resulting removal costs and damages were
caused solely by an act or omission of one or more third
parties
described in section 2703(a)(3) of this title (or solely by
such
an act or omission in combination with an act of God or an
act
of war), the third party or parties shall be treated as the
responsible party or parties for purposes

[[Page 645]]

of determining liability under this subchapter.

(B) Subrogation of responsible party

If the responsible party alleges that the discharge or
threat of a discharge was caused solely by an act or omission
of
a third party, the responsible party--
(i) in accordance with section 2713 of this title,
shall
pay removal costs and damages to any claimant; and
(ii) shall be entitled by subrogation to all rights
of
the United States Government and the claimant to recover
removal costs or damages from the third party or the Fund
paid under this subsection.

(2) Limitation applied

(A) Owner or operator of vessel or facility

If the act or omission of a third party that causes an
incident occurs in connection with a vessel or facility owned
or
operated by the third party, the liability of the third party
shall be subject to the limits provided in section 2704 of
this
title as applied with respect to the vessel or facility.

(B) Other cases

In any other case, the liability of a third party or
parties
shall not exceed the limitation which would have been
applicable
to the responsible party of the vessel or facility from which
the discharge actually occurred if the responsible party were
liable.

(Pub. L. 101-380, title I, Sec. 1002, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 489.)

References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 101-380, Aug.
18,
1990, 104 Stat. 484, as amended, known as the Oil Pollution Act of
1990,
which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out
under section 2701 of this title and Tables.
The Intervention on the High Seas Act, referred to in subsec.
(b)(1)(A), is Pub. L. 93-248, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 8, as amended,
which is classified generally to chapter 28 (Sec. 1471 et seq.) of
this
title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short
Title note set out under section 1471 of this title and Tables.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, referred to in
subsec.
(c)(3), is title II of Pub. L. 93-153, Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 584,
which is classified generally to chapter 34 (Sec. 1651 et seq.) of
Title
43, Public Lands. For complete classification of this Act to the
Code,
see Short Title note set out under section 1651 of Title 43 and
Tables.

 

[Greegor]

Archie > Top posting, Usenet retard!

There were no quotes unless you count
the reference material at the bottom.

 

On Jun 24, 1:57 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

That's right.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC2704

-------------------------
33 USC Sec. 2704. Limits on liability

(a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the
liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and
any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party,
with respect to each incident shall not exceed--

(1) for a tank vessel the greater of-- <snip>
(2) for any other vessel, <snip>
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the
total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000;
---------------------

As to why such a limit would make sense, AFAICT the idea is that the
industry's taxed, which is paid into a federal fund, which acts as
insurance for amounts in excess of the liability limit.[1]

Mandatory insurance, like Obamacare or the new Wall Street
reform^H^H^H^H^H bailout bill--same scheme. And, apparently, when you
need it, they cancel your policy.


Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~

[1] 33 USC Sec. 2712. Uses of Fund

(a) Uses generally

The Fund shall be available to the President for--
(1) the payment of removal costs [...]

 

[keithw86@gmail.com]

On Jun 23, 7:23 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"



k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:07:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 23, 6:49 pm, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:26:51 -0700, Greegor wrote:
WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
every bit of cleanup and lost income?

Joe Barton, apparently.

Then you didn't listen to him.  He just thinks people are entitled to
a fair trial.

Don't you?

Of course not.  Lefties don't believe anyone they disagree with should have
Constitutional protections.

That's tyranny.

Situational ethics; the essence of a lefty.

 

On Jun 23, 9:56 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

krw > What's your opinion of Bills of Attaineder?

In relation to the oil spill, who do you think would
be in line for a legislated death penalty?

Or did you mean "bill of pains and penalties" ?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

"U.S. Constitution: Article I
    Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed .
  Bills of Attainder

''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature,
as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of
high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in
the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a
milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains
and penalties. . "

krw > You didn't answer the question.

Whose execution would the question be about?

WHY did you ask this question regarding the oil spill?

More generally, a Bill of Attainder is a law passed especially to
punish a particular citizen or company, which violates equal
protection of all citizens under the law.

IOW, what Biden threatened to do to BP if they didn't agree to the
shakedown.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:57:08 -0700, DrParnassus
<DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:53:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

So you admit that I'm right (you can't refute) but want me to look up the
obvious? Gotcha.

Squirm bitch. Regardless of whether you are ever right or wrong, you
squirm like a little bitch.

I've told you a hundred times, AlwaysWrong, you're *not* my type. Now take
*NO* for an answer and go back to mommy, where you belong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:56:56 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

G > The BP spill makes it clear to lots of
G > US Citizens that oil companies need
G > to be fully liable with no limit.

G > As far as I am concerned, if the Republicans
G > want to maintain this liability limit, they
G > are doomed in November as much as
G > the Democrats.

krw > So you, in fact, support ex post facto laws.

How did the above paragraph lead
to your mistaken conclusion?

Your answers (and questions) so far indicate that you agree, by citing prior
examples.

G > No.

I know of a case where Family Court Judges
throughout California were getting paid from
both the state and their local county.
They all routinely got paychecks from
TWO sources.

Irrelevant.

Do try to develop an attention span.

Your examples have nothing to do with the case at hand.

An attorney fighting his own battles with
their corruption pointed this out and proved
that they were all in fact getting paid in an illegal
way and that it created more conflict of
interest where the Judge was motivated
by this situation NOT to decide against the
county (which pays them!) and created a
tendency to give the prosecutor (county
which pays them) the benefit of every doubt.

Irrelevant.

It's about WHY the multiple payments
SHOULD continue to be illegal.
Conflict of interest.
WHY this ex-post facto law is wrong.

Then state it as such, rather in "defense" of shaking down BP.

G > California had to pass a law to make this
G > outright illegal payment scheme LEGAL
G > retroactively.

I notice you didn't say THAT was irrelevant.
It was an example of an ex post facto law
to make something legal retroactively
that was in fact illegal but routine.

Such statements make be believe you *AGREE* that ex post facto laws and bills
of attainder are legal. You've cited precedent. You must agree.

What I find particularly interesting about that
is that every one of the Judges who got paid
this way should have known it was illegal.

Ignorance of the law, when it comes to Judges,
would be a really lame defense.

Ideology trumps law, obviously.

So you do approve of ex post facto laws.

Nope. They are unconstitutional for a reason.

Ok, why didn't you say so?

Inequality in the enforcement and prosecution
of laws is already a huge problem in our
Family Court systems nationwide.

krw > Irrelevant.

How could a direct example of the effects
of an ex-post facto law be irrelevant to
the subject of ex-post facto laws you brought up?

One unconstitutional law doesn't make another any better. ...or do you
disagree with this too?

CPS caseworkers ROUTINELY commit
perjury to make cases that actually
had no basis in fact. They basically never
get prosecuted for perjury no matter how
aggregious or blatant it is.

Irrelevant.

Directly effected by ex-post facto COUNTY
payment of Judges.

....nothing to do with BP.

krw > What's your opinion of Bills of Attaineder?

In relation to the oil spill, who do you think would
be in line for a legislated death penalty?

I said nothing about any death penalty.

Or did you mean "bill of pains and penalties" ?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

"U.S. Constitution: Article I
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be
passed .
Bills of Attainder

''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature,
as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of
high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in
the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a
milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains
and penalties. . "

Too restrictive. More precisely, a bills of attainder is a legislated
verdict. Or a law passed to punish an individual. They are illegal because
due process is the courts' domain (and violate equal protection).

krw > You didn't answer the question.

Whose execution would the question be about?

See above.

WHY did you ask this question regarding the oil spill?

Because that's what you're proposing, relative to BP.

krw > Should they be passed ex post facto?

krw > Not this one.

krw > ...or just in this particular case?

G > We're just lucky that BP voluntary pays
G > for PR reasons, so far.

krw > Indeed. Obummer wants to kill that goose.

G > WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
G > every bit of cleanup and lost income?

krw > I don't. Certainly *not* the way it's being done.

Given the stupid liability cap, Obama's
shakedown might be a good idea.

Two wrongs make a right? You're sounding like a real leftist now. Sorry, the
law is the law.

G > A point in their favor is that the location
G > of this oil rig was determined by the
G > US Government. BP wanted to drill in
G > shallower water, but the US Government
G > refused.

G > I'd like to know more about who and why.

krw > That's easy. Who gave them the permit?

Let me know whan you get an answer to your FOIA request.

If you don't know, you're not paying attention.

<snip>

 

[m II]

m II wrote:

The reason that there was absolutely no damage to the Pentagon walls
cause by two massive wings, the engines and a tail section is obvious.

Aliens from Outer Space were observing the event and one microsecond
before impact, INSTANTANEOUSLY converted said appendages into
overcooked PASTA.

That allowed the fuselage to SUCK the wings, engines and tail
surfaces, now far from being Al Dente, into the building.

Hungry emergency workers, said to be mainly of illegal immigrant
status, simply saw an opportunity for a free meal and ATE the
evidence. This clearly explains the miraculous lack of debris.

Many of them have since had to assume false identities in order to
avoid the media and extrajudicial silencing by Federal Agencies.

We've found a few of the dumber ones. They didn't hide in too clever
of a fashion.

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus
Pieyed Piper

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:53:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:47:30 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:16:16 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:43:38 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:27:59 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:19:14 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:04:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

Please describe how the corporations were "punished", when and in what
legal proceeding.

Civil fines.
Bankruptcy ~= death.
No the Obamanation (stolen from the owners and given to the "workers")

Provide backup for any claim that the corporations got
so much as a fine that they actually paid.

UC has paid fines/restitution for Bohpal. There is still the possibility of
sabotage there.

I specifically required backup for any report of them paying anything to
anybody.

Google is your friend.

However, it is not my responsibility to support your claims for you. It
is yours.

So you admit that I'm right (you can't refute) but want me to look up the
obvious? Gotcha.

The only thing i cede to you, is that you like pissing contests.

 

[JosephKK]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 24, 1:57 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

That's right.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+33USC2704

-------------------------
33 USC Sec. 2704. Limits on liability

(a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the
liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and
any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party,
with respect to each incident shall not exceed--

(1) for a tank vessel the greater of-- <snip
(2) for any other vessel, <snip
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the
total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000;
---------------------

As to why such a limit would make sense, AFAICT the idea is that the
industry's taxed, which is paid into a federal fund, which acts as
insurance for amounts in excess of the liability limit.[1]

Mandatory insurance, like Obamacare or the new Wall Street
reform^H^H^H^H^H bailout bill--same scheme. And, apparently, when you
need it, they cancel your policy.


Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~

[1] 33 USC Sec. 2712. Uses of Fund

(a) Uses generally

The Fund shall be available to the President for--
(1) the payment of removal costs [...]

Thanks, James. I read quite a few sections and lost just where the $75M
was placed.

 

[JosephKK]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:57:07 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Thanks JosephKK:
You asked me to READ it before spouting off.
Fair enough, although legalese doesn't READ well.
They REFER OUT a lot, for one thing.

The link you posted shows no limitation
whatsoever, but there are hints that limits
are spelled out in section 2704 of this title.

Greegor thanks for posting the full text.
Yes, the $75M is in section 2704.

As you might have noticed recently, even
lawmakers do not actually READ major
bills before passing them!

Of course not, staff is supposed to see to the actual text of the bill.

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

You're a liar. The limitation would apply to compensation, which is where the
bulk of the cost is going to be. ...particularly if Obummer gets his way.

 

[DrParnassus]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:13:35 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:57:08 -0700, DrParnassus
DrParnassus@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:53:29 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

So you admit that I'm right (you can't refute) but want me to look up the
obvious? Gotcha.

Squirm bitch. Regardless of whether you are ever right or wrong, you
squirm like a little bitch.

I've told you a hundred times, AlwaysWrong, you're *not* my type. Now take
*NO* for an answer and go back to mommy, where you belong.

Squirm, bitch, squirm! Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaa!

 

[Nobody]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:22:36 -0700, JosephKK wrote:

krw posted a piece that said 75 Million.

True, but KRW tried to imply that is limited claims for actual damages in
some way that is not supported by the text of the statute.

Clean-up costs are unlimited, other damages are limited to $75M.

33 USC §2704:

(a) General rule

Except as otherwise provided in this section, the total of the
liability of a responsible party under section 2702 of this title and
any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed--
...

(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total of all
removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
...

However, §2704 (c) provides several exceptions to the cap, including
gross negligence, violation of applicable regulations, failure to provide
"reasonable cooperation", yadda, yadda. Plenty in there to keep the
lawyers busy for the next couple of decades.

 

[MassiveProng@thebaratthee]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:56:37 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do

Do fuck off and die, chump.

 

[m II]

George Jefferson wrote:

Now, when we compare this with the 9/11 theory there is much more reason
to believe it. With 9/11 it is all just suspicion but here was have
proof of something(incompetence or conspiracy). Of course I here nothing
about a conspiracy anywhere. I guess conspiracies can only happen under
a conservative/republican government?

The reason that there was absolutely no damage to the Pentagon walls
cause by two massive wings, the engines and a tail section is obvious.

Aliens from Outer Space were observing the event and one microsecond
before impact, INSTANTANEOUSLY converted said appendages into
overcooked PASTA.

That allowed the fuselage to SUCK the wings, engines and tail
surfaces, now far from being Al Dente, into the building.

Hungry emergency workers, said to be mainly of illegal immigrant
status, simply saw an opportunity for a free meal and ATE the
evidence. This clearly explains the miraculous lack of debris.

Many of them have since had to assume false identities in order to
avoid the media and extrajudicial silencing by Federal Agencies.

We've found a few of the dumber ones. They didn't hide in too clever
of a fashion.

Archimedes' lever
Perenis
life imitates life
TheQuickBrownFox
DrParnassus






mike