Wookie
Proud to be a Chaos Muppet
Staff member
ScubaBoard Business Sponsor
ScubaBoard Supporter
Scuba Instructor
They convicted him of it, so I’d guess it was introduced.
New charges for Sotis (Add helium)and Emilie Voissem (Nexus Underwater)
- Thread starter cerich
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Cert1967
Contributor
The case marches on - there are both post-trial procedural matters at hand, with appeals likely to follow.
I am surprised that those of you following this case - speaking to the legal issues, not the Ds reputation in the dive community - haven't commented on the USA going after the duo for the sale of a couple of rebreathers. Maybe, the underlying act is a strong signal from the government that they wish to set a marker for this type of crime?
The USA has spent considerable resources on this case - an allocation of resources decision that overhangs the prosecution. It would seem that the USA wanted a conviction, not a lesser plea, and they got it.
Well, on to the activity.
First, the USA gets the rebreathers
Who has a third-party interest? Maybe the BK creditors? Who owned the breathers when they were seized? Judgment holders? Lienholders?
Next, the Ds want a new trial. Why not, they say, perhaps foreshadowing their likely journey to the appellate court.
The fat lady hasn't yet warmed up her tune.
I am surprised that those of you following this case - speaking to the legal issues, not the Ds reputation in the dive community - haven't commented on the USA going after the duo for the sale of a couple of rebreathers. Maybe, the underlying act is a strong signal from the government that they wish to set a marker for this type of crime?
The USA has spent considerable resources on this case - an allocation of resources decision that overhangs the prosecution. It would seem that the USA wanted a conviction, not a lesser plea, and they got it.
Well, on to the activity.
First, the USA gets the rebreathers
"It is further ORDERED that upon adjudication of all third-party interests, if any, the Court will enter a final order of forfeiture as to the property in which all interests will be addressed."
Who has a third-party interest? Maybe the BK creditors? Who owned the breathers when they were seized? Judgment holders? Lienholders?
Case 19-24907-JKO, Filed 11/04/19
Next, the Ds want a new trial. Why not, they say, perhaps foreshadowing their likely journey to the appellate court.
The fat lady hasn't yet warmed up her tune.
The motion for a new trial don't seem very strong to me.
Maybe the optics of a bubbleless silent diving system seem more ominous to our officials than they do to us recreational guys.
HalcyonDaze
Contributor
Once they decide to prosecute though they are tenacious. The federal case I sat on a jury for, the offenses were from 2011/2012 and the case went to trial in 2018; apparently some of the delay was the FBI's capability to examine the various electronic items of evidence seized in 2013 (I think) had expanded in that timeframe and they were able to dig deeper. They were also willing to throw in some stuff that was pretty tenuous (where we voted to acquit) despite having the defendant nailed to the wall on the primary charge; my guess is they tried to coerce a plea deal with the threat of nastier charges and the defense attorneys called their bluff.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Belzelbub
Contributor
It might seem weird, but it’s not exactly unheard of either.
A few years ago, I was working in the Defense & Aerospace sector of the company I work for. Working there came with annual training requirements in regulations around ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). There are plenty of devices that fall under ITAR restrictions that are also available in the US retail environment. FLIR products, for example. They may be perfectly legal for me to go down to the store to buy, but it’s not legal to export to some countries. Generally, these are products with military or security applications. Not critical enough to rise to government use only, but the government still doesn’t want these dual use items to be going to certain countries.
Most cryptography products were ITAR controlled for the longest time. In fact RSA made a T-shirt that complained about that with the source code on it, that T-shirt was also export controlled.
In fact due to those controls internet security was held back until they passed a bill to allow the export without requiring a backdoor.
The Playstation 2 was restricted from export due to the higher end CPU that it had. And still occasionally higher end computer products can be restricted but it is less likely due to the international nature of computer production.
So in summary our export controls are convoluted and often stupid.
