That is what millions of $ in campaign contributions buys.
I go along with “seize and sell then pay the crew first” technique of dealing with this kind of situation. It’s not like the government doesn’t have any experience seizing and selling ships.
As far as “innocent owner” goes, maybe a few seizures and sales will make potential owners pay a bit more attention to how their assets are operated.
If one of those Bouchard vessels had 1 kilo of cocaine on board they would have already been seized and sold already. But the only thing they are guilty of is operating unsafe vessels, killing a couple of people and making a mess of the sea. That they don’t pay their crew is of little concern other than some publicity that might concern potential investors.They now hide behind the curtain of being a corporation or company which is just a piece of paper with no individual being held responsible. Ben Franklin was against the formation of corporations , “They demand the rights of men but accept none of the responsibilities of men. A company is only a piece of paper. I cannot hang a piece of paper.” Thanks to Citizens United corporations now control the government . Bouchard’s political contributions are paying off for him. It was cheap insurance for him, best retainer he ever paid.
Being slightly awkward, I have forwarded the story to Russia Today. They seem to enjoy publishing stories that embarrass the US as well as broadcasting them on prime US viewing times.
Lets hope RT are not influenced by “donations” to keep this quiet.
I am sure they will appreciate this. RT and every other international news organization and political party have paid services that automatically send them news that may interest them or they can use. When Russia Today receives your forward I am sure they will thank you with something like “No shit comrade, really?”
There has got to be some kind of agreement, even if it’s just implicit.
I decided to write both senators here in California and my representative over the issue. I worked for Bouchard for exactly one hitch, saw the writing on the wall and left (this was after the barge explosion). I used to be crewed on one of the ATBs being affected in Texas.
This is disgusting and needs to end. Hopefully the COTP federalizes the vessels and gets the crews off. Hell, maybe a call to one of the campaigns will do something.
Donna Bouchard/B272 being towed by three tugs (non-Bouchard) out of the Miss River as we speak and supposedly headed for Amelia via Fourchon.
That’s a tight squeeze into Fourchon. Any idea why Amelia? Someone buy it?
No idea, being towed/assisted by Finn Falgout, Zion Falgout and Miss Callie Cate
Interesting, the “Zion Falgout” is the old “Freedom” from OSG/Maritrans. Completely rebuilt by Falgout, minus tall stacks and removal of upper wheelhouse. One of the few that didn’t get scrapped. How ironic now towing a competitor
Tengineer,
Is that supposed to be helpful to the crews in this situation.
That’s one of their big rigs, relatively new too, so I doubt it’s going to scrap.
I don’t see it fitting through the bayous to make it all the way to Amelia.
I agree. I remember it always being a big deal when they would bring a 400 foot general cargo ship in there. They would always close the port down for it. I can’t see how a 700 foot ATB will squeeze in there. Should be interesting.
USCG personnel aren’t licensed. They could order them to a dock but docks won’t take them because Morty can’t pay. The law is actually on the CGs side. They have an obligation to protect the waterways as does the Master of the vessel. Habeas Corpus is to bring a prisoner before a court. Unfortunately when you agree to work on a vessel you agree to not violate the law. Even if the company violates the law that does not relieve you of your duty not to violate it. The crews need to get together and file a lawsuit against BTC and make some noise with Congress and the media. The CG is well within the law to keep minimum manning levels aboard because your Manning Document is a legally binding document…
The CG can’t be all authority and no responsibly and the master all responsibility.
If the mate on watch calls the master and says his relief hasn’t shown up can the master just say you must remain till relieved and the master is no longer responsible? Of course not.
In this case the COTP is responsible above the master and company. If the captain and crew gives notice and leaves do they remain responsible for the vessel?
Say CG does go after the crew’s documents and pulls them, at some point someone else is responsible for that vessel.
If the master says the mate can’t leave until properly relieved and he leaves anyway the mate would be liable for leaving the vessel and facing fines. The master at that point would have to report the unsafe condition to the CG and explain the situation and the orders he gave and the fact that the company could not provide a relief. All of that would have to be documented in the rough log. I feel for the crew. It sucks but there are laws that apply. Now if it were me I might take my chances in court with a sympathetic jury but that doesn’t mean I would have to pay up or lose my license. I believe the CG in the end would be sympathetic to the mariners but for now they are trying to avoid vessels being left at anchor with no crew. It’s a shitty situation and the one guy responsible, Morty, seems to only be suffering by having to sell his Gulfstream.
Understand they are headed for Leeville. Don’t believe they will get in there.
Coast Guard has arranged for shift as it is now in there care and custody. Supposed to be joined by the other three vessels currently sitting in the river.
There are no contracts.
If the mates are on 6 and 6 and the off-watch mate refuses to relieve then yes, he can be punished. That’s not in dispute.
What I’m asking is at what point does the master become responsible to relieve him. After 6 hrs? A day? 10 days? Never?
At some point the responsibly shifts from the mate waiting for a relief that never comes and the watch becomes the master’s responsibility.
Nothing to do with a shitty situation.
This isn’t a situation where somebody is on watch waiting to be relieved. Most tugs only have a master and a mate anyway. This is weather the mate or master or AB can leave the vessel putting it in a position of being improperly manned. Their only recourse right now if through legal action because while they are right that they are getting the shaft that doesn’t make them not liable if they break the law themselves. I don’t think the master would be held liable if he tried to keep personnel on the vessel and they refused. He can’t forcibly keep them there so they could be charged. The master would be liable if he did nothing or he left the vessel himself or did not report an unsafe Manning that was the result of crew deserting the vessel. Any it is a shitty situation because of the legal quagmire that it’s left the crew and CG in. That’s why there is an entire Admiralty Law system in place just to navigate these kinds of messes.