 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / Scuba Locations / February 2005Cuba Referrals
Does anybody know if it is possible to do either a PADI or BSAC course in Cuab after doing a referral in the UK. I have been asked by someone who is going to Cuba and would like do half the course in the UK and finish off in Cuba Any info would be gratefully appreciated Thank you ( please remove 'DIVE' if replying directly )  SignatureDenis C Todd, DIVEaquatodd@btinternet.com > Does anybody know if it is possible to do either a PADI or BSAC course in > Cuba after doing a referral in the UK. I > have been asked by someone who is going to Cuba and would like do half the > course in the UK and finish off in > Cuba. I think it unlikely that a PADI course would be offered in Cuba. PADI's corporate head is domiciled in the United States and we still have sanctions in place against Cuba. Lee >> Does anybody know if it is possible to do either a PADI or BSAC course in >> Cuba after doing a referral in the UK. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > corporate head is domiciled in the United States and we still have > sanctions in place against Cuba. I don't think it unlikely. Thanks to multinational corporationism it's no more unlikely than buying Coca Cola and Marlboros in Cuba, which are sold in every bar. Did you really think Cubans drink their Cuba Libres with some generic communist cola beverage? SSI certainly has a presence there, I can vouch for that, even though they're based in Ft. Collins, CO. As for PADI, http://www.wowcuba.com/scuba/dive-intro.html offers PADI certifications through Asst. Instructor, and that's but one example I pulled out of a 2 second Google search. >> I think it unlikely that a PADI course would be offered in Cuba. PADI's >> corporate head is domiciled in the United States and we still have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in every bar. Did you really think Cubans drink their Cuba Libres with > some generic communist cola beverage? I don't have a clue what Cubans drink, but it's hardly the same thing. Coke is distributed by those that have no other connection with the parent company. Certification cards are issued by those who are affiliated with the US corporation. > SSI certainly has a presence there, I can vouch for that, even though > they're based in Ft. Collins, CO. As for PADI, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offers PADI certifications through Asst. Instructor, and that's but one > example I pulled out of a 2 second Google search. Excellent. I'll forward your message to OFAC, the agency charged with deciding what can and can not be done relative to Cuba. If you're right, no harm done. If you're not, I'm sure they'll appreciate your help. Lee >>>I think it unlikely that a PADI course would be offered in Cuba. PADI's >>>corporate head is domiciled in the United States and we still have [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Lee Holy cow, Lee, there's so many holes in OFAC regs, they whistle in the breeze. Some of us think they still keep a crazy aunt in their basement to sort out their responsibilities. If anyone can ask the same question twice and get the same answer I'd be surprised. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Holy cow, Lee, there's so many holes in OFAC regs, they whistle in the > breeze. Some of us think they still keep a crazy aunt in their basement > to sort out their responsibilities. If anyone can ask the same question > twice and get the same answer I'd be surprised. Is that a good or a bad thing? I suspect most of us agree that the Cuban sanctions did not work, are not working and will not work. The more loopholes there are in those particular regulations, the better. On the other hand, where the law applies, the law abiding citizen complies. Lee > Is that a good or a bad thing? I suspect most of us agree that the Cuban > sanctions did not work, are not working and will not work. The more > loopholes there are in those particular regulations, the better. On the > other hand, where the law applies, the law abiding citizen complies. Have you ever violated a speed limit? If so, why? If not, why not? >> Is that a good or a bad thing? I suspect most of us agree that the Cuban >> sanctions did not work, are not working and will not work. The more >> loopholes there are in those particular regulations, the better. On the >> other hand, where the law applies, the law abiding citizen complies. > > Have you ever violated a speed limit? If so, why? If not, why not? Speed limit laws were not enacted under the Trading With the Enemy Act. Lee > Speed limit laws were not enacted under the Trading With the Enemy Act. If we were at war with Cuba I would respect laws enacted against under the Trading With the Enemy Act. But I thought the Cold War was over. >> Speed limit laws were not enacted under the Trading With the Enemy Act. > > If we were at war with Cuba I would respect laws enacted against under the > Trading With the Enemy Act. But I thought the Cold War was over. Apparently, somebody thought we were at war with Cuba when the laws were first enacted. As for the cold war being over, I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The USSR is no longer the threat it was. Sanctions and other economic factors appear to have been decisive there. They have not been so effective against Cuba, perhaps because so few of our "allies" chose to enforce similar sanctions. I don't see that the issues relative to Cuba have changed a lot, one way or the other. I don't expect they will until Castro is dead and gone. Want to place any bets on whether the Cuban refugee laws will change when Castro's gone? Lee [....] > Want to place any bets on whether the Cuban refugee laws will change when > Castro's gone? What has Castro's leaving got to do with anything? My bet will depend on who replaces him, and that will depend on whether we try to purchase a democracy for Cuba, too - not that it would be difficult to do, they've always preferred dollars to Cuban pesos. Castro's replacement may be just as intractable as he is/was, and long term success will depend on whether his new Cuban Convertible peso deal works out. The lack of a 10% exchange fee for the Euro will benefit locals more than touristas, especially if the 1/1 ratio holds up under U.S. pressure. Anybody that thinks the U.S. wins just because Castro loses may be disappointed. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > What has Castro's leaving got to do with anything? My bet will depend on > who replaces him, and that will depend on whether we try to purchase a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the 1/1 ratio holds up under U.S. pressure. Anybody that thinks the U.S. > wins just because Castro loses may be disappointed. You missed the point. As long as most of us can remember, or have studied, there have been problems with the Cuban government. Human rights problems date to long before Castro and his government. It is, however, Castro and his government that we imposed sanctions against, it is Castro and his government that is the basis for our current immigration laws relative to Cuban refugees and it is Castro and his government that is the excuse, if not the legitimate reason, why the Cuban population in the US continues to insist on actions and sanctions against Cuba. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other group that earns the right to stay in the US simply by setting foot on the soil of the US. We send Mexicans back, we send Haitians back, we send Jamaicans back, we send everybody back . . . except Cubans. As long as Castro is in power, the US is unlikely to change its policies much. He embarrassed us after we supported him in his fight against Batista and he's challenged us since. It will be interesting to see what changes occur when he's no longer in power, when neither the US, nor the Cubans in the US, have him as an excuse for providing what is clearly preferential treatment to those arriving from one, otherwise insignificant, island out of hundreds in the Caribbean. Lee >>What has Castro's leaving got to do with anything? My bet will depend on >>who replaces him, and that will depend on whether we try to purchase a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Lee I don't think I missed any point, not all Cuban immigrants here in the U.S. share the majority opinion of their brethren. It is my opinion that these are also the more enlightened ones, the ones that no longer live in the past and better understand the world currency market. They also don't particularly like the idea of control freaks in the Greenbelt legislating preferential treatment predicated on the 'embarrasments' of the past. They, and I, are convinced if change in the social and/or political wind is desired on that small insignificant island, let the dollars flow. Doing so would suck the marrow from the bones of high-handed excuses. Cuba doesn't have much of anything the U.S. wants, hence the genetic ignorance so prevalent in the Greenbelt and the barios of S. Florida. The time for make-up sex with Cuba is way behind schedule, especially when one considers the soiled sheets in China and other less-affluent areas of U.S. monetary influence. Yes, a new political boy-toy in Cuba would offer change, but the U.S. will be interested only if there's something in the sheets for them, not Cuba. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > I don't think I missed any point, not all Cuban immigrants here in the > U.S. share the majority opinion of their brethren. True, but I'm talking about the ones that do, the ones that were powerful enough to kill a bill that favored one Congressman's state simply because he thought it was time to quit spending US taxpayer money for Radio Marti, the ones that have consistently used the group that is unified as a threat to force the government to continue Cuba sanctions, including prohibitions on traveling to Cuba that apply equally to all US people . . . except them, the ones that, when it last looked like the sanctions might be dropped, flew planes into Cuban airspace, dropped leaflets on Cuban soil, all in violation of both Cuban and American law and, when the inevitable happened, one of them got shot down, screamed about injustice nad the need for even tighter restrictions on US/Cuba relations. > It is my opinion that these are also the more enlightened ones, the ones > that no longer live in the past and better understand the world currency [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > island, let the dollars flow. Doing so would suck the marrow from the > bones of high-handed excuses. Unfortunately, the people you're talking about are not the ones that vote as a large block and are not the ones that are most vocal. > Cuba doesn't have much of anything the U.S. wants, hence the genetic > ignorance so prevalent in the Greenbelt and the barios of S. Florida. Genetic? > The time for make-up sex with Cuba is way behind schedule . . . You're preaching to the choir. The fact that I promote compliance with the law does not mean I agree with them. Tell it to those that continue to insist on sanctions, not to one who would rejoice in their end. Lee >>I don't think I missed any point, not all Cuban immigrants here in the >>U.S. share the majority opinion of their brethren. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > one of them got shot down, screamed about injustice nad the need for even > tighter restrictions on US/Cuba relations. There are victims, and there are volunteers. Some are easily confused. >>It is my opinion that these are also the more enlightened ones, the ones >>that no longer live in the past and better understand the world currency [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Unfortunately, the people you're talking about are not the ones that vote as > a large block and are not the ones that are most vocal. Yup, a crowd loves a lens. The people I'm familiar with don't like cameras, nor witnesses - they work out of reach of the media. >>Cuba doesn't have much of anything the U.S. wants, hence the genetic >>ignorance so prevalent in the Greenbelt and the barios of S. Florida. > > Genetic? Well, it seems that way when it systemically bleeds from one administration/family to another. >>The time for make-up sex with Cuba is way behind schedule . . . > > You're preaching to the choir. The fact that I promote compliance with the > law does not mean I agree with them. Tell it to those that continue to > insist on sanctions, not to one who would rejoice in their end. As I said, some people are actively involved in the public and private venues of such efforts. As far as compliance is concerned, that's the least of their concerns because they come and go at will, and not all events are reported by the media. As to whether OFAC is complicit, or even aware, is unknown to me, nor do I even care because not everyone shares the same agenda. As I said earlier, OFAC regs whistle in a breeze. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Yup, a crowd loves a lens. The people I'm familiar with don't like > cameras, nor witnesses - they work out of reach of the media. I wish them luck. > I don't have a clue what Cubans drink, but it's hardly the same thing. > Coke is distributed by those that have no other connection with the parent > company. Certification cards are issued by those who are affiliated with > the US corporation. Actually, it's distributed by international distributors that are licensed by the American corporation, presumably with their full consent since they could (should?) otherwise withhold relicensing: "While the front door is closed, however, the back door is wide open. US law prohibits small business from trading with Cuba, yet brand name American products are now omnipresent in Cuba. Tourists are chauffeured in Ford vans. Restaurants now serve Coke and Budweiser. Stores sell Marlboro, Winston and Lucky Strikes. Marlboros cost $2.50, while a pack of Luckys go for $1.50, a difference that reflects the superior recognition of the Marlboro brand name, not a difference in wholesale cost. The presence of American products is the result of the global economy and the multinational positioning of so-called "American" corporations. Cuba's Coke, for example, comes from the Coca Cola Company of Mexico. U.S. cigarettes are imported through third countries." http://www.mediastudy.com/articles/bdcuba3.html > Excellent. I'll forward your message to OFAC, the agency charged with > deciding what can and can not be done relative to Cuba. If you're right, > no harm done. If you're not, I'm sure they'll appreciate your help. Good. I hope OFAC finally shuts down Coca Cola. It's played a large part in causing Americans' high rates of obesity and tooth decay and is clearly an "enemy of the State". Here's some more to help you on your anti-PADI anti-Cuba jihad: http://www.diving-zone.com/esp/curso_cuba_habanasol.html "Los cursos ofrecidos por Habanasol son certificados PADI, y las clases se dictan en Varadero, ciudad con m?s de 20 Km. de playa de arenas blancas y aguas turquesas. En esa zona hay varios centros de buceo, con todas las condiciones para la pr?ctica de este deporte. Se pueden visitar cavernas inundadas por agua dulce y salada, arrecifes coralinos con m?s de 30 especies de peces as? como restos de un barco mercante alem?n hundido en 1943." And, as I mentioned before, our own dear cert. agency SSI: http://www.diving-zone.com/esp/curso_cuba_plus.html "El mar que rodea Cuba es c?lido y cristalino, sin corrientes fuertes ni especies marinas peligrosas. Hay much?sima vida en el mar, plantaciones y corales intactos en pleno crecimiento. Idiomas plus trabaja junto a Cuba Diving School, escuela certificada por la Asociaci?n SSI y con muchos a?os de experiencia en la ense?anza de esta pr?ctica deportiva. SSI es mundialmente conocida por la gran calidad de organizaci?n y una gran demanda por el ?mbito de seguridad. Adem?s de los cursos para principiantes, esta escuela ofrece un paquete de buceo, s?lo para buzos con experiencia." With PADI and SSI closed down by OFAC, perhaps GUE, in the absence of competition, will finally be able to get their open-water cert up and running. >> I don't have a clue what Cubans drink, but it's hardly the same thing. >> Coke is distributed by those that have no other connection with the [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > competition, will finally be able to get their open-water cert up and > running. I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... Wonder if he's PADI certified? > I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger > years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... > Wonder if he's PADI certified? Castro dove with Robert Redford back in 1988. > I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger > years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... > Wonder if he's PADI certified? Oh my God....does PADI actually have a Freediving Cert? > > I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger > > years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... > > Wonder if he's PADI certified? > > Oh my God....does PADI actually have a Freediving Cert? They probably wanted to, but couldn't bring themselves to offer a course with the word "free" in it (a search of the PADI website finds three hits for "freediving," all of which refer to PADI scuba divers involved with freediving). > ? > I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger > ? > years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > three hits for "freediving," all of which refer to PADI scuba divers > involved with freediving). You may be right about the name since the course, and certification they offer is for skin-diving. Read more at http://www.scubatampa.com/skindiver.html . Lee > ? Oh my God....does PADI actually have a Freediving Cert? To be fair, NAUI has one too http://www.naui.org/training/skindiver.html . mfree.net> wrote in message >> I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger >> years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... >> Wonder if he's PADI certified? > > Oh my God....does PADI actually have a Freediving Cert? Of course they do. http://www.scubatampa.com/skindiver.html Lee > I read somewhere (Pippin's website maybe?) that Castro, in his younger > years, was an ace freediver/spearfisher... > Wonder if he's PADI certified? Probably not. I don't think PADI was around when Castro was young. Come to think of it, they weren't around when I was young. Lee >> I don't have a clue what Cubans drink, but it's hardly the same thing. >> Coke is distributed by those that have no other connection with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by the American corporation, presumably with their full consent since they > could (should?) otherwise withhold relicensing: Which is not the same thing as being an affiliate. > "While the front door is closed, however, the back door is wide open. US > law prohibits small business from trading with Cuba, yet brand name [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cost. The presence of American products is the result of the global > economy . . . yes > and the multinational positioning of so-called "American" corporations. and no. > Cuba's Coke, for example, comes from the Coca Cola Company of Mexico. > U.S. cigarettes are imported through third countries." All legally. PADI still issues their cards directly, or is it your contention that they have franchised the process out to a non affiliated foreign corporation? > Good. I hope OFAC finally shuts down Coca Cola. It's played a large part > in causing Americans' high rates of obesity and tooth decay and is clearly > an "enemy of the State". Lobby for sanctions. > Here's some more to help you on your anti-PADI anti-Cuba jihad: I have no anti PADI or anti Cuba jihad. I simply believe in complying with the law. You agree, right? That is one of the requirements of your profession, right? > With PADI and SSI closed down by OFAC, perhaps GUE, in the absence of > competition, will finally be able to get their open-water cert up and > running. Now that might be an effective way to displace the present administration in Cuba, but replacing a communist dictator with a diving one. Lee > All legally. PADI still issues their cards directly, or is it your > contention that they have franchised the process out to a non affiliated > foreign corporation? "PADI Worldwide is a privately held corporation guided by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and officers and directors comprising the Worldwide Executive Committee. The PADI Worldwide group includes seven service offices, some of which are wholly owned subsidiaries, while others are licensees. PADI Worldwide manages the long range planning and global marketing for the organization while the officers, managers and staff at each PADI Office conduct the day-to-day business activities that support PADI programs and provide services to PADI Members. PADI Members influence corporate decisions by sharing their opinions through advisory boards, member forums and responding to surveys sent out by PADI Worldwide or PADI Offices." www.padi.com So presumably one of these "licensees" can issue PADI cards in Cuba just like one of Coca Cola's licensees can sell Coke in Cuba. > Lobby for sanctions. I'm lobbying you. > I have no anti PADI or anti Cuba jihad. I simply believe in complying > with the law. You agree, right? That is one of the requirements of your > profession, right? Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us the nature of civil disobedience. Jury nullification is also a real part of the law. I'm just doing my small part. Lawyers true to their profession and true to themselves and true to their country have a duty to advocate changing unjust laws. > So presumably one of these "licensees" can issue PADI cards in Cuba just > like one of Coca Cola's licensees can sell Coke in Cuba. If PADI has licensed the issuance of cards, then they probably can. >> Lobby for sanctions. > > I'm lobbying you. Your'e wasting your time on me. I like Coke and, even if I didn't, nobody asks my opinion on sanctions. If they did, the Cuba sanctions would long since have been done away with. >> I have no anti PADI or anti Cuba jihad. I simply believe in complying >> with the law. You agree, right? That is one of the requirements of your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to themselves and true to their country have a duty to advocate changing > unjust laws. Funny, I don't see where you answered the question. Let's try again, complying with the law is one of the requirements of your profession, right? Lee > If PADI has licensed the issuance of cards, then they probably can. Amazing how the sanctions work. American corporations can make money from doing business with Cuba, they just can't make money from doing business with Cuba. > Your'e wasting your time on me. I like Coke and, even if I didn't, nobody > asks my opinion on sanctions. If they did, the Cuba sanctions would long > since have been done away with. Who knows? There have been a lot of changes in the Bush cabinet. Perhaps Snow will be out and you'll be tapped as the new Treasury Secretary. I'll put in a good word for you. > Funny, I don't see where you answered the question. Let's try again, > complying with the law is one of the requirements of your profession, > right? Not necessarily. California Business and Professions Code section 6101(a) provides that, "Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension." I don't believe that minor violation of OFAC regulations constitutes "a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude". And then there's the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-210. Advising the Violation of Law. "A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal." Why, is complying with the law one of the requirements of your profession? That would suck. >> If PADI has licensed the issuance of cards, then they probably can. > > Amazing how the sanctions work. American corporations can make money from > doing business with Cuba, they just can't make money from doing business > with Cuba. The American corporations are making money from doing business with those who do business with Cuba. They are no more in business with Cuba than an attorney is in business with the criminal he represents. > Who knows? There have been a lot of changes in the Bush cabinet. Perhaps > Snow will be out and you'll be tapped as the new Treasury Secretary. I'll > put in a good word for you. Snow might be out, but the chance of me being in are very, very slim. I am, after all, registered as a Democrat. On the other hand, with all the news about turmoil at the top levels, I have given some thought to applying for a job with the CIA. >> Funny, I don't see where you answered the question. Let's try again, >> complying with the law is one of the requirements of your profession, >> right? > Not necessarily. No oath as a member of the BAR? If so, nothing in it about obeying and upholding the law of the land? > California Business and Professions Code section 6101(a) provides that, > "Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, > constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension." I don't believe that > minor violation of OFAC regulations constitutes "a felony or misdemeanor, > involving moral turpitude". Deliberate violation of the provisions are OFAC is a criminal violation. > And then there's the California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-210. > Advising the Violation of Law. "A member shall not advise the violation > of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in > good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take > appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or > ruling of a tribunal." So, do you believe, in good faith, that OFAC regulations and the underlying laws are invalid? > Why, is complying with the law one of the requirements of your profession? > That would suck. Because that's how it is for government employees, at least those in occupations like mine. I was sworn in and compliance with federal law was part of the oath. When I was comissioned, I took another one. Lee > The American corporations are making money from doing business with those > who do business with Cuba. They are no more in business with Cuba than an > attorney is in business with the criminal he represents. Only if the attorney is licensing criminals to commit crimes. In the case of Coke and PADI, they are selling to others the right to do in Cuba what they otherwise would be doing by themselves. > No oath as a member of the BAR? If so, nothing in it about obeying and > upholding the law of the land? The legally required attorney's oath in California is to uphold the U.S. and California constitutions. OFAC's broad interpretations of the Trading with the Enemy Act are hardly the constitution. >> California Business and Professions Code section 6101(a) provides that, >> "Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Deliberate violation of the provisions are OFAC is a criminal violation. But is it a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? > So, do you believe, in good faith, that OFAC regulations and the > underlying laws are invalid? Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell you. >> The American corporations are making money from doing business with those >> who do business with Cuba. They are no more in business with Cuba than [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of Coke and PADI, they are selling to others the right to do in Cuba what > they otherwise would be doing by themselves. They're not selling the right to do anything in Cuba. They're just selling Coke to somebody they legally can, just like an attorney is representing somebody they legally can. Actually, the attorney is probably less ethical since Coke is providing a product to somebody that is doing their own business legally. The attorney is providing services to somebody that is suspected or, or perhaps even known to have comitted a crime. >> No oath as a member of the BAR? If so, nothing in it about obeying and >> upholding the law of the land? > The legally required attorney's oath in California is to uphold the U.S. > and California constitutions. Your oath is more general than mine. Of course the Constitution is in mine, but it goes further than that. I'm dismayed that the oath for attorneys doesn't as well. > OFAC's broad interpretations of the Trading with the Enemy Act are hardly > the constitution. OFAC writes regulations based on the dictates of the executive branch, loosly subject to the control of the judicial branch, perhaps way too loosly. It ain't the consitution, but it is part of the system operating under the constitution. >> Deliberate violation of the provisions are OFAC is a criminal violation. > > But is it a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? It's not a misdemeanor at all. It's a felony. >> So, do you believe, in good faith, that OFAC regulations and the >> underlying laws are invalid? > > Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell you. Counselor, state your case. What is the basis for your claim that the OFAC regulations and teh underlying laws are invalid? Prove your point or admit defeat. Lee > They're not selling the right to do anything in Cuba. They're just > selling Coke to somebody they legally can, just like an attorney is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to somebody that is suspected or, or perhaps even known to have comitted a > crime. It's my understanding that licensing agreements are far more involved than simply selling a product. Coca Cola licenses Coca Cola of Mexico to not only purchase the product, but to manufacture, bottle, and then distribute it, all under the watchful eye of Cola Cola USA. License revenues are presumably based on the volume of product sold by the licensee. There is no doubt that Coca Cola USA could legally prohibit its licensees from distribution in Cuba since they maintain legal control of all aspects of the distribution of their product. That they choose not to shows how weak the OFAC regulations really are. As for the attorney ethics, I can't believe that you, a member of the federal government sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, would suggest that there be any ethical dilemma in assisting a U.S. citizen to exercise his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. That's no more unethical then selling guns under the Second Amendment even though the gun seller knows that the guns will be used for shooting. > Your oath is more general than mine. Of course the Constitution is in > mine, but it goes further than that. I'm dismayed that the oath for > attorneys doesn't as well. Apparently yours lacks the Sixth Amendment, or is that just since the Patriot Act was enacted? As I said before, attorneys have not only the right but the duty to challenge the validity of laws they believe to be invalid. Your duty is to blindly follow such laws. That's why there's a difference between our oaths. > OFAC writes regulations based on the dictates of the executive branch, > loosly subject to the control of the judicial branch, perhaps way too > loosly. It ain't the consitution, but it is part of the system operating > under the constitution. As I understand it, under the separation of powers doctrine, over-reaching of the regulations is tolerated by the judiciary unless there's a clear constititional violation. Either the legislature or the executive branch must act or the regulations must be challenged on a constutitional basis. The legislature has acted, but the executive has overacted by vetoing the legislature. Hopefully now the Republicans will realize that now that they have sufficiently evangelized the white populace of Florida into voting Republican, that they no longer need the Cuban Hispanic vote and that their beloved corporate constituency stands to make one heck of a lot of money by exploiting Cuban sweet tooths. Think how much more lucrative it would be for Coca Cola to sell the product direct, shipped straight out of Miami, rather than funneling it through Mexico? > Counselor, state your case. What is the basis for your claim that the > OFAC regulations and teh underlying laws are invalid? Prove your point or > admit defeat. A. We're not at war with Cuba and there is no national emergency, save for Bush's need to get re-elected, to warrant continuance of the OFAC regulations. B. Since we're not at war with Cuba and the regulations are hence invalid, they are an unconstitutional deprivation of our constitutional right to travel. 'The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment ... Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."' -- Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles (1958) > It's my understanding that licensing agreements are far more involved than > simply selling a product. Coca Cola licenses Coca Cola of Mexico to not > only purchase the product, but to manufacture, bottle, and then distribute [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the distribution of their product. That they choose not to shows how weak > the OFAC regulations really are. I'm quite certain that they do not, in fact, control all aspects of distribution. The might, if they really tried, control one level removed. I doubt they try very hard. The profit motive is all the other way. As for the OFAC regulations being weak, violate one and we'll use you as a test cast, OK? > As for the attorney ethics, I can't believe that you, a member of the > federal government sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, would suggest > that there be any ethical dilemma in assisting a U.S. citizen to exercise > his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to have the assistance > of counsel for his defense. I neither said, nor implied any such thing. It is the attorney's comittment to the law that is in question, not that of the accused. To the best of my knowledge, neither the constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any of the states and territories grant the right to violate the law to an attorney. Then again, since the laws were written by an attorney, I might be wrong. > That's no more unethical then selling guns under the Second Amendment even > though the gun seller knows that the guns will be used for shooting. Shooting is not illegal. Crimes are. If you meant to say illegally shooting somebody, I'm sure you know better. It is not only unethical, it is illegal to sell a firearm with knowledge that it will be used in a crime. Your suggestion that it is otherwise shows how weak attorney ethics really are. >> Your oath is more general than mine. Of course the Constitution is in >> mine, but it goes further than that. I'm dismayed that the oath for >> attorneys doesn't as well. > Apparently yours lacks the Sixth Amendment, or is that just since the > Patriot Act was enacted? It's apparent only when it's convenient for an attorney to say it is. > As I said before, attorneys have not only the right but the duty to > challenge the validity of laws they believe to be invalid. Your duty is > to blindly follow such laws. That's why there's a difference between our > oaths. The word blindly does not appear in my oath, or the seal that represents my line of business. If I'm not mistaken, it does appear in the seal of yours. You have heard the term "blind justice," right? >> OFAC writes regulations based on the dictates of the executive branch, >> loosly subject to the control of the judicial branch, perhaps way too >> loosly. It ain't the consitution, but it is part of the system operating >> under the constitution. > As I understand it, under the separation of powers doctrine, over-reaching > of the regulations is tolerated by the judiciary unless there's a clear > constititional violation. So it's your branch of the system that's failing, right? That judiciary you're talking about, they're attorneys, right? >> Counselor, state your case. What is the basis for your claim that the >> OFAC regulations and teh underlying laws are invalid? Prove your point >> or admit defeat. > A. We're not at war with Cuba and there is no national emergency, save > for Bush's need to get re-elected, to warrant continuance of the OFAC > regulations. The presence of a war against a specific country is not a requirement of the Trading With the Enemies Act. Castro, and his government, were and continue to be enemies of the United States. Further, not all sanctions relative to Cuba were enacted under the Trading With the Enemy Act and all that were, have been reconfirmed under a variety of other statutes. > B. Since we're not at war with Cuba and the regulations are hence > invalid, they are an unconstitutional deprivation of our constitutional > right to travel. There is no prohibition against travel in the sanctions. While the ability to travel may contribute to one's ability to the pursuit of happiness, there is no absolute right to unrestricted travel. In fact, those that wish to travel into and out of almost every country in the world, including the United States, are constrained by a complex system of passports, visas and other restrictions. It's quite amusing that somebody that believes that the specifically stated right to keep and bear arms doesn't really exist, would claim that there is an inherent right to travel anywhere and anytime you wish, without restriction, included by inference in the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." > Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside > frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. So was the recreational use of drugs, including movement across our borders. > Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a > livelihood. Now there's a right to any and all livelihoods? Does that apply to the sale of controlled substances too? > It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he > eats, or wears, or reads. The same might be said for having sex with children. That's not a protected liberty either. > Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. "Our nation," wrote > Chafee, "has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly > harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks > best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."' > -- Justice William O. Douglas, Kent v. Dulles (1958) All such statements to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not declare the Cuban sanctions to be unconstitutional. If you can make a successful case otherwise, you should do so. I am quite certain the profits would greatly improve your own access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I neither said, nor implied any such thing. It is the attorney's comittment :to the law that is in question, not that of the accused. The defense attorney works for the accused. The law is represented by the prosecuting attorney. Makes for a fair fight. Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > :I neither said, nor implied any such thing. It is the attorney's > comittment > :to the law that is in question, not that of the accused. > > The defense attorney works for the accused. The law is represented by > the prosecuting attorney. The law is represented by the court. The people are represented by the prosecuting attorney. > Makes for a fair fight. Where does it say that the guilty deserve a fair fight. Let's make sure the ethics are clear. The accused has a right to an attorney only for two reasons, 1. to protect the innocent and 2. to provide employment for attorneys. Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: : Actually, the attorney is probably less ethical :since Coke is providing a product to somebody that is doing their own :business legally. The attorney is providing services to somebody that is :suspected or, or perhaps even known to have comitted a crime. Why is that unethical? Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > : Actually, the attorney is probably less ethical > :since Coke is providing a product to somebody that is doing their own > :business legally. The attorney is providing services to somebody that is > :suspected or, or perhaps even known to have comitted a crime. > > Why is that unethical? I didn't say unethical, I said less ethical. I conclude that it is less ethical for an attorney to work with somebody that he knows has committed a crime than it is for Coke to work with somebody that is known to be acting legally. The question of the relative ethics involved in working with somebody that is only suspected of a crime is not as clear, but when compared with the ethics of working with somebody that is known to be acting within the law proabably still falls short. Do you disagree? Lee "Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I didn't say unethical, I said less ethical. I conclude that it is less :ethical for an attorney to work with somebody that he knows has committed a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : :Do you disagree? Yes, I disagree. An ethical person will work on behalf of the person paying them. Dan Bracuk Is it my imagination, or do Buffalo Wings taste like chicken? The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/ > :I didn't say unethical, I said less ethical. I conclude that it is less > :ethical for an attorney to work with somebody that he knows has committed [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, I disagree. An ethical person will work on behalf of the person > paying them. Rarely has there been a better example of why the courts judge people on the basis of the law rather than on the basis of ethics. Lee > No oath as a member of the BAR? If so, nothing in it about obeying and > upholding the law of the land? I doubt any attorney would place himself in such a position. The most they will do is swear to support the constitution of the US and the state in which they practice. Neither of which is the same as obeying the law. > I have no anti PADI or anti Cuba jihad. I simply believe in complying with > the law. You agree, right? That is one of the requirements of your > profession, right? I assume Greg is an attorney and as such I believe the requirement of his profession is to create a scenario in which the law complies with his intent. >>I have no anti PADI or anti Cuba jihad. I simply believe in complying > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > profession is to create a scenario in which the law complies with his > intent. Some don't believe being an attorney is a pre-requisite to that end. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > I assume Greg is an attorney and as such I believe the requirement of his > > profession is to create a scenario in which the law complies with his > > intent. > > Some don't believe being an attorney is a pre-requisite to that end. Neither do it, in fact that is one of the reasons people hire attorneys (who needs to be one when you can pay them to do the work?) but the conversation **was** about an attorney. What anyone else can or will do is irrelevant in that context. >> I don't have a clue what Cubans drink, but it's hardly the same thing. >> Coke is distributed by those that have no other connection with the parent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >by the American corporation, presumably with their full consent since they >could (should?) otherwise withhold relicensing: [snip] >http://www.diving-zone.com/esp/curso_cuba_habanasol.html > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >competition, will finally be able to get their open-water cert up and >running. Reading up on old news, I find this. There is always CMAS. The ultimate "non-commercial" C-card would be a CMAS card from the FCAS; "FEDERACI?N CUBANA DE ACTIVIDADES SUBACUATICAS". Signed Fidel. But, alas, I don't thing Fidel is diving anymore. -- mrr > Does anybody know if it is possible to do either a PADI or BSAC course >in Cuab after doing a referral in the UK. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >( please remove 'DIVE' if replying directly ) Gonna have to be BSAC Signaturedillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman Apologies to the group , but my original question was a legitimate one. I did not intend to start a political argument ( although it seems that has what has happenned !!) I will be in Cuba myself on Saturday 20th and will check out the situation personally. Thanks to those who posted an answer rather than debated politics. Denis PADI AOW , BSAC asst inst. , BSAC Advanced diver SignatureDenis C Todd, aquatodd@btinternet.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.