Phoenix Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, danv3 said: The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped. Cruise lines cannot join since they do not pay corporate taxes, etc. in the U.S.A. for the ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twangster Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, Phoenix said: Cruise lines cannot join since they do not pay corporate taxes, etc. in the U.S.A. for the ships. The amount of tax paid is not relevant to filing litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 12 minutes ago, twangster said: The amount of tax paid is not relevant to filing litigation. You cannot sue for revenue lost in one country when your ships are flagged in another and in which you do not pay taxes on said revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jticarruthers Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 22 minutes ago, Phoenix said: You cannot sue for revenue lost in one country when your ships are flagged in another and in which you do not pay taxes on said revenue. They pay payroll taxes on US based employees (aka the corporate staff in Miami). By virtue of having a presence in the US they are paying some level of income and other taxes since they must have a US registered company of some sort here in the US (probably a sub of the foreign parent). Its misinformation that they dont pay taxes in the US, they pay taxes on the operations that occur in the US. They pay port fees to the ports to use the port facilities, etc. True they dont pay taxes on the bulk of the profits earned on their ships, but those ships spend the bulk of their time out of the US waters so I dont have a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 22 minutes ago, jticarruthers said: They pay payroll taxes on US based employees (aka the corporate staff in Miami). By virtue of having a presence in the US they are paying some level of income and other taxes since they must have a US registered company of some sort here in the US (probably a sub of the foreign parent). Its misinformation that they dont pay taxes in the US, they pay taxes on the operations that occur in the US. They pay port fees to the ports to use the port facilities, etc. True they dont pay taxes on the bulk of the profits earned on their ships, but those ships spend the bulk of their time out of the US waters so I dont have a problem with it. Office employees are one thing as they are booking cruises and that revenue does get taxed. But revenues generated by the ships are a different story as those revenues are not taxed by U.S. but I'm sure the U.S. would if they could. If any cruiseline could brinh an action due to lost revenue from their ships, don't you think they would have done so within the past 14-15 months? All cruise lines are just sitting back EXCEPT NCL who threatened moving their SHIPS to another port. NCL knows you cannot sue for lost revenue which they do not pay taxes on. So, next best thing was to move their ships in order to get the revenue flowing again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovetoCruise87 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 From the CDC's memorandum: 3 The last extension of the NSO, through Oct. 31, 2020, found that, despite the continuing voluntary suspension of operations, and the cooperation of the industry, “[c]ruise ships continue to be an unsafe environment” and were the location of multiple outbreaks and deaths during the period of voluntary suspension. Can someone tell me when these multiple outbreaks and deaths occurred? As far as I remember, out of all the sailings that have happened over the past year, May to May, there have only been a handful of cases and those were contained thus showing that the cruise lines know what they are doing in regards to any cases on a ship. The CDC seems to believe that they can force the cruise lines to achieve a 0% case rate on their ships, and if they don't they would love to shut them down again once restarted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danv3 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Phoenix said: Cruise lines cannot join since they do not pay corporate taxes, etc. in the U.S.A. for the ships. That is not accurate. Cruise lines operating in (and in several cases based in) the US absolutely have access to US courts. Also, no one is talking about suing for lost revenue. This case is about injunctive and declaratory relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, danv3 said: That is not accurate. Cruise lines operating in (and in several cases based in) the US absolutely have access to US courts. Also, no one is talking about suing for lost revenue. This case is about injunctive and declaratory relief. I'll just ask you this, then why haven't they done so already? As always, agree to disagree. Have a terrific day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_0 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 13 minutes ago, Phoenix said: I'll just ask you this, then why haven't they done so already? As always, agree to disagree. Have a terrific day! I'm assuming it's a genuine fear of retaliation. The cruise lines have no current leverage against the CDC. So their choice is to play nice as they can trying to get them to ease restrictions. With the exception of Del Rio, none of the CEOs are publicly stating their opinions in the way they really should. 1 hour ago, danv3 said: The issue of standing is a big one for Florida to overcome. If a cruise line had joined the lawsuit, that would have really helped. Alaska joining the lawsuit does help with this. Cruising revenue is a MUCH bigger part of their GDP. Last estimate I read was about 5%. Also helps that multiple states have joined because it becomes an issue that's bigger than Florida and the CDCs response is really laser focused on stating specifically Florida doesn't have the standing. But multiple states experiencing harm from this order changes the narrative substantially. danv3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jticarruthers Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 You know we really didnt think this through, with so many of us being in Florida already and knowing how to get things done in the new modern era we really should have planned on having a "protest" today ... you know one of those things were lots of people gather in a small area without masks and yell in each others faces ... Phoenix, Jill, LovetoCruise87 and 2 others 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_0 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Exhibit from the Port of Miami economic impact study. These numbers are in ($1,000). So you're talking an economic impact of $4.4 Billion on the Port of Miami for shutting down the cruise industry according to this study. The article above from the maritime lawyers call their impact on Florida minimal. I would hardly call $4.4 Billion a "minimal" impact on the Florida state economy. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773/gov.uscourts.flmd.388773.9.21.pdf LifesEz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steverk Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 52 minutes ago, LovetoCruise87 said: Can someone tell me when these multiple outbreaks and deaths occurred? As far as I remember, out of all the sailings that have happened over the past year, May to May, there have only been a handful of cases and those were contained thus showing that the cruise lines know what they are doing in regards to any cases on a ship. The CDC seems to believe that they can force the cruise lines to achieve a 0% case rate on their ships, and if they don't they would love to shut them down again once restarted. I don't have a list, nor do I have time to put one together at the moment, so I'm working from memory. Hurtigruten, which operates an expedition cruise line and ferry service in Norway, had a significant outbreak on one of their ships. The later admitted they were not following their own protocols on the ship. I don't remember if these others were before or after the NSO changed to the CSO, but there were a handful of others: A small expedition cruise line (uncruise perhaps?) tried to start in Alaska and had an immediate outbreak. More recently, there was a luxury line that was going to sail out of Barbados, but had an outbreak early on and had to cancel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_0 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 15 minutes ago, steverk said: I don't have a list, nor do I have time to put one together at the moment, so I'm working from memory. Hurtigruten, which operates an expedition cruise line and ferry service in Norway, had a significant outbreak on one of their ships. The later admitted they were not following their own protocols on the ship. I don't remember if these others were before or after the NSO changed to the CSO, but there were a handful of others: A small expedition cruise line (uncruise perhaps?) tried to start in Alaska and had an immediate outbreak. More recently, there was a luxury line that was going to sail out of Barbados, but had an outbreak early on and had to cancel. Wikipedia is not always the best/most reliable source but someone already put kind of list together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_cruise_ships Beware some of the missing dates are from early last year. Check the reference/source and look at the dates of the cited articles of those with missing dates. steverk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 11 hours ago, Uncwmark said: I’m disappointed @Matt elected to use this blog’s Twitter account to retweet ANYTHING from this ambulance chaser. Why give him a bigger platform? I chose to retweet because it is the only legal insight I have found on the merits of the case. The guy is clearly a cruise hater and I'm not a fan of his by any means. However, there are a lot of eye balls on this case and I have yet to find any other look at the legal standing of what to expect. Trust me, I get it feels "dirty" going to his site. But I think there's a difference between reading one article and checking it everyday. I appreciate the feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 OK, let's start with the source of the linked article arguing why FL won't prevail in it's law suit against HHS and CDC. Matt just commented. This is Jim Walker, people. He is a notorious anti cruise freak. You could say he is a fraud. He claims he is a lawyer but when I looked at his web site a month or so ago and read has anit-cruise sentiments, I then searched the FL register for FL Bar certification. Nothing. But let's be fair. I'm averse to arguments that attack the source. What is "Standing." The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court. Walker must not have read the addendum to FL's suit that presented a study showing the economic impact to the state's ports and the state itself. Whether Standing is established by that is in the Judge's hands. If I'm Merryday, I'd have a hard time saying FL hasn't suffered "injury in fact." Does the CDC's authority to regulate sanitation and potential for the spread of disease trump a state's authority to disallow it? This is a very good question. It breaks down into two parts: (1) Federal v. state authority. (2) Is their a continuing and imminent threat of the spread of SARS2/COVID related disease aboard a cruise ship. If I recall the arguments offered in FL's complaint, FL cited case law on the question of Federal authority to regulate matters that cross into a state's regulatory authority. The decision on this argument is going to be precedent setting with regard to U.S.C. 42. If FL prevails, it will set limits on the CDC's authority and probably require legilative action to address that. My view is that the CDC has over-reached as it pertains to the extent of time argument that FL has advanced. i.e., U.S.C. 42 authorizes the CDC to intervene on a specific and time limited basis, not a 15 month shuttering of ship operations that may or may not actually present a threat of disease spread. Does the SARS2/COVID threat persist such that continued restrictive measures involving maritime operations enforced by the CDC are necessary? We've been down this road here. The steps the cruise lines have taken and existing sanitary protocols that the cruise lines are following mitigate the threat. The emerging circumstance with vaccines nearly eliminate it. I'll stop here as arguments diminishing the CDC's response to FL's claim will be moot in a matter of hours. LifesEz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncwmark Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 18 minutes ago, Matt said: I chose to retweet because it is the only legal insight I have found on the merits of the case. The guy is clearly a cruise hater and I'm not a fan of his by any means. However, there are a lot of eye balls on this case and I have yet to find any other look at the legal standing of what to expect. Trust me, I get it feels "dirty" going to his site. But I think there's a difference between reading one article and checking it everyday. I appreciate the feedback. You do a great job with this site, @Matt and I appreciate your explanation. I get it and, unfortunately, the ambulance chaser may ultimate be right regarding outcome of today’s hearing. We’ll see? Matt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twangster Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 All of us who don't see the outcome helping may be right but we are looking at it objectively versus said attorney who took a position then found arguments to support that position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeybandit Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Matt said: Trust me, I get it feels "dirty" going to his site. SteveinSC, JLMoran and Matt 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovetoCruise87 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 I just read the Complaint for Declaratory and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief that the State of Florida submitted. And I have to say that, even though I am not a lawyer, what I read does present a very good case in favor of Florida. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, LovetoCruise87 said: I have to say that, even though I am not a lawyer, what I read does present a very good case in favor of Florida. Let's hope so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mook1525 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Will there be any kind of outcome today? If so what time? thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floski Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 17 minutes ago, mook1525 said: Will there be any kind of outcome today? If so what time? thanks My concerns exactly. Are we/aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0_0 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 16 minutes ago, mook1525 said: Will there be any kind of outcome today? If so what time? thanks The hearing was scheduled for 9am today. It likely has already commenced and concluded. We don't really have a timeline on when the judge will produce any orders. It can be assumed all parties involved will want an expedient ruling, however to my knowledge there's no specific timeline applied to preliminary injunctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Hopefully Bay News will report soon a follow up to this morning’s report: https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2021/05/12/ag-ashley-moody-s-lawsuit-over-cdc-cruise-restrictions-to-go-before-judge# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Another local report from this morning https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/floridas-lawsuit-over-cdc-cruise-orders-goes-before-judge-wednesday/amp/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danv3 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Usually you can predict the outcome from comments the judge makes during the hearing. Did any reporters attend (live or virtual)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, danv3 said: Usually you can predict the outcome from comments the judge makes during the hearing. Did any reporters attend (live or virtual)? We should’ve gotten Tampa peeps to watch their noon news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee23 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 11 minutes ago, danv3 said: Usually you can predict the outcome from comments the judge makes during the hearing. Did any reporters attend (live or virtual)? My assumption is the stock would have popped if it was unambiguous good news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate91 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, LizzyBee23 said: My assumption is the stock would have popped if it was unambiguous good news. Or dropped if it was unambiguous bad news. I would like to go by the mantra, "No news is good news." At least for now! LizzyBee23 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee23 Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, nate91 said: Or dropped if it was unambiguous bad news. I would like to go by the mantra, "No news is good news." At least for now! Same! I'll just keep refreshing for now, haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Can't belive journalists weren't in the courtroom. Appears the case was heard by Merryday. That's good. HHS attorney's first claim was that FL didn't have standing. I felt if it made it past that technical obstacle good chance FL would prevail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeybandit Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 I'd be very surprised if any ruling came directly during this hearing. It may be a week or two before the judge issues his decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 A week? Don't think so. This was an expedited or emergency hearing that the court granted (that's a positve). I think its imminent. One possibility is that the Judge has invited the parties to meet under the threat that he's told them one or the other has made a case. Baked Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twangster Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 The judge may not grant an injunction but I do feel like the suit did cause action on the part of the CDC. I'm not sure the latest updates for vaccinated guests would have been introduced without the lawsuit. The CDC knows they were being ridiculous. SebagoSue, stevendom57, danv3 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 At this point the CDC has so much egg on its face. They are even receiving criticism from main stream media- who have been towing their ridiculous agenda for a year. The latest was letting the teacher’s unions tell the CDC not to open schools. Their messaging is all over the place. Congress is grilling them as we speak. Baked Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeybandit Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Here's one article about the hearing, though it seems to be a summary of the filings, not anything that actually happened today. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-coronavirus-florida-cdc-cruise-fight-20210512-kjhcypfcvrc6lnfg63guagobeq-story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNCFanatik Posted May 12, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Jill said: At this point the CDC has so much egg on its face. They are even receiving criticism from main stream media- who have been towing their ridiculous agenda for a year. The latest was letting the teacher’s unions tell the CDC not to open schools. Their messaging is all over the place. Congress is grilling them as we speak. Yes, they are losing the public with slow, outdated guidelines. The guidelines for children summer camps are also a tipping point of public opinion. Walensky didnt fare well yesterday in Congressional hearing. And for all the talk of vaccine hesitancy, the CDC is contributing to it by their outdated guidelines for vaccinated people. Jill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 I have viewed the law suit since it's filing as having wide ranging implications for the CDC's authority to impose restrictions on business activity, mobility and behaviors. In fact, legislation that has recently been advanced with implications for the cruise industry has focused on limiting the CDC's power to do the kinds of things they did, not just to the cruise industry, but by fiat to large segments of the economy. To limit their powers to unilaterally shut things down, even in a declared PHE without appropriate oversight that balances the cost of restrictions versus the benefits to PH is something that, IMO, is urgently needed. The outcome of the FL lawsuit is potentially a seminal event in those deliberations regarding Congress' oversight of the executive and other branches of government. Accordingly, Merryday is probably taking his time, doing some cosulting and getting briefed on the implications of an injunction should he be considering that. What this might produce is an injunction against enforcement of the CSO with narrowly defined limits that would apply only to U.S.C 42. This kind of thing could, indeed, take some time to work out the details of what his ruling will actually say. nate91 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 1 hour ago, twangster said: The CDC knows they were being ridiculous. Well, I'm not sure they have a clue that much of their pandemic guidance has, from the beginning, lacked good data to back up that guidance. Early on there wasn't good data so, OK. We should play along. However, it's become increasingly obvious that most of their guidance is not based on the abundance of data that became available by fall, 2020 and is even more robust as I write this. For me, the "in abundance of caution" approach that has back-stopped their guidance and their messaging has created unwanted outcomes more deleterious to both US PH interests and her economy than it has produced PH benefits. I think it telling that there has been no acknowledgement of that, no significant pull back. That indicates to me the top decision makers are living in an alternate reality, self created with opposing views being silenced in a typical "trust me, I'm the government, we know what we are doing, and we're here to help" mentality. Baked Alaska 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cruisinghawg Posted May 12, 2021 Report Share Posted May 12, 2021 Somebody needs to do a background check on the people or person making the decision on this cruising debacle. We may find a deep hatred of the industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.