Royal Caribbean Fights Back!

[1corona4u]

Corona, I really thought that FOIA delt with Government Agencies, not private companies.

 

 

From the FOIA site;

 

 

Like all federal agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally is required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records requested in writing by any person. However, agencies may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Each state has its own public access laws that should be consulted for access to state and local records.

Each federal agency is responsible for meeting its FOIA responsibilities for its own records. A list of Principal FOIA Contacts At Federal Agencies is available from this site. Likewise, each Department of Justice component is responsible for processing FOIA requests for the records that it maintains. Consult the DOJ FOIA Reference Guide and the List of Individual DOJ Components and FOIA Contacts if you plan to make a FOIA request to the Department of Justice. Before making a FOIA request, you should first browse About DOJ, Press Room, Publications & Documents, and Reading Rooms, which contain information already available to the public. If you are not familiar with this Web site, please refer to How to Use This Home Page for more specific guidance.

 

Here is the definition of "agency" for the government;

The definition of "agency" is extremely important for it determines those entities within the executive branch of the federal government to which the FOIA (and, as a result of its incorporation of this definition, the Privacy Act) applies. It was not a defined term prior to the 1974 Amendments, and the House of Representatives (whose revision of this amendment was adopted in conference) made it clear that the intent of the definition was to expand the FOIA's scope to include those entities which may not be considered agencies under section 551(1) of title 5 U.S. Code, but which perform governmental functions and control information of interest to the public. The bill expands the definition of "agency" for purposes of section 552, title 5, United States Code. Its effect is to insure inclusion under the Act of Government corporations, Government controlled corporations, or other establishments with the executive branch, such as the U.S. Postal Service. The term "establishment in the Executive Office of the President," as used in this amendment, means such functional entities as the Office of Telecommunications Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Security Council, the Federal Property Council, and other similar establishments which have been or may in the future be created by Congress through statute or by Executive order. The term "Government corporation," as used in this subsection, would include a corporation that is a wholly government-owned enterprise, established by Congress through statute, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Inter-American Foundation. The term "Government controlled corporation," as used in this subsection, would include a corporation which is not owned by the federal government, such as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

 

 

 

So, maybe you're right about that..haven't been able to find anything about private companies...

 

OK, here it is;

 

The Privacy Act applies to personal information maintained by agencies in the executive branch of the federal government. The executive branch includes cabinet departments, military departments, government corporations, government controlled corporations, independent regulatory agencies, and other establishments in the executive branch. Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are also subject to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act does not generally apply to records maintained by state and local governments or private companies or organizations.

 

Here is the link;

 

http://www.sba.gov/foia/guide.html

[smeyer418]

According to the privacy act of 1974, they[RCI] would have to have the permission of everyone on any list [record] they maintain, before they can turn it over to anyone.(other that a law enforcement government agency) So all crew and passengers would have to agree to that.........

 

(b) Conditions of disclosure

 

 

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be--

(1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties;

(2) required under section 552 of this title;

(3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section;

(4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13;

(5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be

used solely as a statistical research or reporting record,

and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable;

(6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value;

(7)

to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought;

(8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;

(9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee;

(10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office;

(11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31.

 

© Accounting of Certain Disclosures

 

 

Each agency, with respect to each system of records under its control, shall--

(1) except for disclosures made under subsections (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, keep an accurate accounting of--

(A) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency made under subsection (b) of this section; and

(B) the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made;

 

(2) retain the accounting made under paragraph (1) of this subsection for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made;

(3) except for disclosures made under subsection (b)(7) of this section, make the accounting made under paragraph (1) of this subsection available to the individual named in the record at his request; and

(4) inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by the agency in accordance with subsection (d) of this section of any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency if an accounting of the disclosure was made.

 

(d) Access to records

 

Each agency that maintains a system of records shall--

 

(1) upon request by any individual to gain access to his record or to any information pertaining to him which is contained in the system, permit him and upon his request, a person of his own choosing to accompany him, to review the record and have a copy made of all or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him, except that the agency may require the individual to furnish a written statement authorizing discussion of that individual's record in the accompanying person's presence;

******************************************************

 

You can read the rest of it here;

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/privstat.htm

 

 

So, until they actually file a lawsuit, and they are gathering evidence for "discovery", I don't think RCI has to turn it over at all, since they [smith's] are not using it for any of the purposes listed above. That's the way I interpert it anyway.......and I'm sure the lawyers for RCI know what they are doing....as does the FBI.

 

 

 

 

Two points... I said eventually actually there is a pre lawsuit discovery that can be used in most states to obtain relevant evidence. Which can be an order of a court of competent jurisidiction. Once a lawsut is begin they will be entitiled to it, unless RC gets a protective order.

and its a foreign flagged vessel.

 

Filing a lawsuit is easy. There is no privacy rule that will protect them from getting this...eventually. Its not a secret list. The way you get a FOIA manifest is from the government. All entering vessels file a manifest with the names of the passengers. Most of the cruise lines from the 20 and the 30's no longer exist. Its only because the US Government has the manifests that they are available.

[1corona4u]

Just to keep the info correct, here is the FOIA rules(not privacy act);

 

The FOIA does not apply to elected officials of the federal government, including the President[9], Vice President, Senators, and Congressmen.[10] The FOIA does not apply to the federal judiciary. The FOIA does not apply to private companies; persons who receive federal contracts or grants; tax-exempt organizations; or state or local governments.

All States and some localities have passed laws like the FOIA that allow people to request access to records. In addition, there are other federal and state laws that may permit access to documents held by organizations not covered by the federal FOIA.[11]

[Barefoot_Pirate]

I would think that RCCL has internal policies related to the controls over "company confidential" information... I would think customer lists would have some controls over them like any other valuable asset.

 

They may have some public policy statment that they will not sell our information or share it with anyone other than RCCL sister companies.

 

Since the cruise was totally conducted internationally, I don't know which US Government agencies would have access to the passanger list other than the FBI?

 

The language in the limitations of liablitiy section of the RCCL contract has key dates, which may explain why the DW and in-laws started making the fuss when they did, they wanted to file protective claims while thier attorney's searched for a basis for a claim....at this point I view DW and in-laws to be essentially actors hired by the lawyers to taint the potential jurry pool.

[1corona4u]

I found this comment to be particulary irresponsible. He does not even acknowledge that not all of the alcohol consumed by them, was distributed by the cruiseline. I wished someone would have asked him how RCI would control the alcohol intake of passengers if they were also drinking smuggled liquor onboard;

 

BRETT RIVKIND, SMITH FAMILY ATTORNEY: Well, Larry, you know the cruise line has a duty to protect its passengers and I think you got to look at the history of this whole cruise.

 

You know this particular cruise has an alleged murder on it and an alleged sexual assault. There was various complaints about certain passengers prior to George Smith going missing and the same passengers were involved in an alleged sexual assault.

 

Now, we're not making any specific allegations as to who may have been responsible for the murder of George Smith but, Larry, when you operate a cruise ship and you have three and a half million passengers a year and you make millions of dollars serving these passengers alcohol and encouraging them to party into the wee hours, you've got a duty as a cruise line to protect those passengers.

 

You're going to make all that money serving all that alcohol. You're going to encourage them to get drunk. There's nothing wrong with a passenger drinking a lot on a cruise ship. They're not getting behind the wheel of a car. In this particular case, Larry, I think the evidence is going to show that this cruise was not managed properly by the cruise line including...

 

(this editor is so screwed up!, I can't de-bold any comments I have to make now....have to publish and come back in to edit.....)

 

Grasping at straws I think.........

[zotzer]

I wished someone would have asked him how RCI would control the alcohol intake of passengers if they were also drinking smuggled liquor onboard;

 

This is laughable. RCI actually *tries* to do it, and as you can read on this board every single day, people pooh pooh it and talk about ways to smuggle their own booze on board.

 

Tracy

[1corona4u]

This is laughable. RCI actually *tries* to do it, and as you can read on this board every single day, people pooh pooh it and talk about ways to smuggle their own booze on board.

 

Tracy

 

Exactly.:) And really, shame on this board for allowing those post to stay on the board. It's as if they are silently encouraging it. As we are all aware, they delete post with less significance all the time.........;)

[Fury1995]

Two points... I said eventually actually there is a pre lawsuit discovery that can be used in most states to obtain relevant evidence. Which can be an order of a court of competent jurisidiction. Once a lawsut is begin they will be entitiled to it, unless RC gets a protective order.

and its a foreign flagged vessel.

 

Filing a lawsuit is easy. There is no privacy rule that will protect them from getting this...eventually. Its not a secret list. The way you get a FOIA manifest is from the government. All entering vessels file a manifest with the names of the passengers. Most of the cruise lines from the 20 and the 30's no longer exist. Its only because the US Government has the manifests that they are available.

 

A question here (and maybe 1Corona4u an find the answer) How does U.S. Federal or any other U.S. law apply? If someone tries to get a minfest of a vessel entering and leaving a U.S. port I can see. This sailing NEVER entered U.S. waters or port correct?

[bhchan]

it's taken me 4 days to read this whole thread and catch up. I missed the 'other' one.

 

Can someone point me to why no one is considering suicide (with alcohol-impaired decision making) at this point?

 

The way I see it, we have a very jealous new-husband and a very outgoing (to the point of flirtatious) new-wife.

Having been a very jealous and immature person myself, I can see how anything slightly 'flirtatious' can be blown out of proportion (just ask my first girlfriend)

 

If the two involved are especially stubborn, thickheaded, or strongwilled (they seem to be?) then it's an inevitable clash if anything goes amiss.

 

From JH's point of view, her timeline might've gone something like this, assuming she wasn't having an affair:

Internal thought, getting out of elevator: "That bastard dare call me a hussy when I haven't even slept with anyone else. Well, I'll show him. I'm not going back to the cabin to night. Let him worry about where I'm spending the night."

After being tucked into bed by ship officers: since she was already up, she stumbled out of bed immediately and gone (somewhere? on the same floor, so no elevator cameras) got bored waiting for her spa appointment and just showed up to the spa. She probably wouldn't have gone back to her cabin first because she's still mad at GS. This seems possible to me given that she thought he was in the cabin when the spa people asked her, and that she did not change out of her (probably dirty) clothes to fresh ones.

 

From GS's point of view:

Internal thought: "Got kicked in the balls by the hussy. Screw that, I'm going to party with these crazy guys."

On the way back to the cabin, first time: "If that hussy isn't in the cabin when we get there, I'm going to give her hell when I see her" (to which some calming down talk is probably made)

In the cabin, first time: "That hussy must be making out at the hot tub." (Change shirt... maybe it was dirty?) The gang goes with him to the hot tub.

Back in cabin, second time: throws a tantrum. has a bloody nose (could happen with high blood pressure, tension, whatever, without needing a fight or anything external) The gang tries to cheer him up with more drinking. gets more and more agitated. hears banging on wall from the neighbor. shoos the gang out the door. (the gang continues their party at the other guy's room.)

No JH. Get's pissed. Is too drunk to think clearly. Goes to the balcony and closes the door behind him. (doesn't hear the first knocking on the door from the JH crew looking for him to help get her back from the corridor... a tragic irony moment) Depressed (enhanced by the alcohol), decides that he'll "show that hussy", drags the chair to climb on the railling. Jumps off (thus landing further from the canopy than if he had been just pushed)

 

 

Well, that's my take on it based on all the posts here.

[1corona4u]

A question here (and maybe 1Corona4u an find the answer) How does U.S. Federal or any other U.S. law apply? If someone tries to get a minfest of a vessel entering and leaving a U.S. port I can see. This sailing NEVER entered U.S. waters or port correct?

 

Well, I would have to say that it would be done according to the laws of where the incident occured, but, it may also be complicated now by the FBI being involved....it's really not an easy thing to look for, as we don't know all of the statutes involves, but I am looking for it. However, from the Dept. of State's website;

 

"Familiarize yourself with local laws and customs of the countries to which you are traveling. Remember, the U.S. Constitution does not follow you! While in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws."

[1corona4u]

As far as GS's state of mind, we will probably never know that, but as I watched Oprah last week, I noticed something, so I went back to get it today. You know how they show all of the pix of the loving/happy couple on their cruise, well, here is a pic that really disturbed me, and there was also one apparently taken a while before this one, which appears to be in the dining room, where they seemed to be OK with each other. Then this one, where she clearly has her head up against another person, perhaps a man, who's face is blurred out...look at George's face.....does he look happy with what's going on in the pic?

 

Not good quality since I took it from the dvd, to my camera, but you can see it clearly enough.....

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53853437-M.jpg

 

He looks like he's thinking, what to do next with this, and obviously some concern......or I'm reading more into that moment in time...but since it's a candid shot, and given what Jen is doing, I don't think so.......

[AFT_LOVER]

Abrams: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11021040/

 

Great way he the attorney with respect & Dr Lee have worked in the past. Abrams gets Lee to tell him what he found - the canopy.

 

Rita Cosby: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11021195/

 

Rita scores big getting Lee to say he found a SCRAPE on the canopy. Another forensic guests states he feels George was stabbed, which caused the pooling of blood to spread all over the canopy.

[1corona4u]

Here is the pic of the balcony that I was talking about yesterday, where you can see the balcony chair, in the pic. Now this was after the turks investigated, but the other odd thing I see is, that there appears to only be ONE chair on the balcony.....I would think that if it was out there, you'd at least see the arm of it, or something, if it were to the left, in the pic.....and when Greta did her show, there appeared to only be one chair too...but you can kind of see the table....if they are indeed missing a chair, that would indicate foul play, would it not?? Maybe I'm off base with that thinking?

(again, low quality pic)

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53856666-M.jpg

[Fury1995]

As far as GS's state of mind, we will probably never know that, but as I watched Oprah last week, I noticed something, so I went back to get it today. You know how they show all of the pix of the loving/happy couple on their cruise, well, here is a pic that really disturbed me, and there was also one apparently taken a while before this one, which appears to be in the dining room, where they seemed to be OK with each other. Then this one, where she clearly has her head up against another person, perhaps a man, who's face is blurred out...look at George's face.....does he look happy with what's going on in the pic?

 

Not good quality since I took it from the dvd, to my camera, but you can see it clearly enough.....

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53853437-M.jpg

 

He looks like he's thinking, what to do next with this, and obviously some concern......or I'm reading more into that moment in time...but since it's a candid shot, and given what Jen is doing, I don't think so.......

 

Looks like the bare shoulder of another person. My guess it's probrably a woman, however, even when you think the photographer is taking a picture without you in it, as he must have thought not shimmiing up to his DW, you usually focus on th subject not the photographer. Better question is, who was taking the picture and directing the photo?? Possibly Paul?

[rcicruiser]

1corona4U Good pictures, I would say George did not look to happy. I guess their marriage was not as great as the family thinks.

 

How can the cruiseline control people's drinking. Either they will get it at the bar, from someone else or have some in their cabin. It is the passengers who have to control themselves. People are responsibale for themselves.

 

As far as the manifest goes, if the FBI has it and will not give it to the family then the cruiseline should not either. They will just interfere with the investigation. Then again maybe they want to because it may not be going their way.

 

The good news about the scrape is that it shows that the cruiseline did not paint over the area like the Smith's said they did. Shows that they where not trying to hide anything.

[berwyn]

As far as GS's state of mind, we will probably never know that, but as I watched Oprah last week, I noticed something, so I went back to get it today. You know how they show all of the pix of the loving/happy couple on their cruise, well, here is a pic that really disturbed me, and there was also one apparently taken a while before this one, which appears to be in the dining room, where they seemed to be OK with each other. Then this one, where she clearly has her head up against another person, perhaps a man, who's face is blurred out...look at George's face.....does he look happy with what's going on in the pic?

 

Not good quality since I took it from the dvd, to my camera, but you can see it clearly enough.....

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53853437-M.jpg

 

He looks like he's thinking, what to do next with this, and obviously some concern......or I'm reading more into that moment in time...but since it's a candid shot, and given what Jen is doing, I don't think so.......

1corona,That's a great pic.Is that the other guy's arm around jhs?

[1corona4u]

Looks like the bare shoulder of another person. My guess it's probrably a woman, however, even when you think the photographer is taking a picture without you in it, as he must have thought not shimmiing up to his DW, you usually focus on th subject not the photographer. Better question is, who was taking the picture and directing the photo?? Possibly Paul?

 

Could have been a guy in a wife beater too...;) I was looking at the hairline...if it were a woman, she must have had her hair pulled back pretty tight.....

[1corona4u]

1corona4U Good pictures, I would say George did not look to happy. I guess their marriage was not as great as the family thinks.

 

How can the cruiseline control people's drinking. Either they will get it at the bar, from someone else or have some in their cabin. It is the passengers who have to control themselves. People are responsibale for themselves.

 

As far as the manifest goes, if the FBI has it and will not give it to the family then the cruiseline should not either. They will just interfere with the investigation. Then again maybe they want to because it may not be going their way.

 

The good news about the scrape is that it shows that the cruiseline did not paint over the area like the Smith's said they did. Shows that they where not trying to hide anything.

 

I wonder if the "scrape" wasn't suppose to be scraps? Seems to me, there would be very few things on someone's body that would scrape painted metal...it may have been from his watch, teeth, or maybe something like a chair............the chair has me going now...does anyone know if the 2nd chair should be visible in that pic? Would there have been enough room to not see it in the pic??

[1corona4u]

And you can tell all this by this picture. You're such an apologist it's disgusting.

 

The cruiseline sells the booze it's their duty to make sure people don't consume too much.

 

It's just a matter of time before they get the list so give it to them now

 

Nobody is apologizing for anything. We are discussing the facts, and statements made in this case. If it bothers you, I suggest you stop reading this thread.

[1corona4u]

1corona,That's a great pic.Is that the other guy's arm around jhs?

 

The thumbs up? No, it's her arm...

[Barky]

As far as GS's state of mind, we will probably never know that, but as I watched Oprah last week, I noticed something, so I went back to get it today. You know how they show all of the pix of the loving/happy couple on their cruise, well, here is a pic that really disturbed me, and there was also one apparently taken a while before this one, which appears to be in the dining room, where they seemed to be OK with each other. Then this one, where she clearly has her head up against another person, perhaps a man, who's face is blurred out...look at George's face.....does he look happy with what's going on in the pic?

 

Not good quality since I took it from the dvd, to my camera, but you can see it clearly enough.....

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53853437-M.jpg

 

He looks like he's thinking, what to do next with this, and obviously some concern......or I'm reading more into that moment in time...but since it's a candid shot, and given what Jen is doing, I don't think so.......

 

I'm thinking she has her head against a female. Looks like the other person has a halter top on? I think I see shoulder????

 

Not sure what's going through his mind if anything. Might just be tired or under the influence already? In any case not the look of a happy groom toasting to their future life as she portrayed in her statements.

[Barky]

Here is the pic of the balcony that I was talking about yesterday, where you can see the balcony chair, in the pic. Now this was after the turks investigated, but the other odd thing I see is, that there appears to only be ONE chair on the balcony.....I would think that if it was out there, you'd at least see the arm of it, or something, if it were to the left, in the pic.....and when Greta did her show, there appeared to only be one chair too...but you can kind of see the table....if they are indeed missing a chair, that would indicate foul play, would it not?? Maybe I'm off base with that thinking?

(again, low quality pic)

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53856666-M.jpg

 

Not sure about the chair but what interests me is the stain on the carpet between the sofa and the bed. Could that be blood? Seems like quite a bit if it is.

[Barefoot_Pirate]

Corona, scrape or scrap, I don't see any importance in it.

 

For all we know there are ten million scrapes and scraps on that canopy, made before and after DH went over. Don't know how either one can be tied to DH. Even if it were evidence, it would be something the FBI missed, and only supports RCCL claim that the canopy was not painted.

 

But be worried about Dr. Lee having more mis-information than information at this point. He is an employee of the Widow Smith. If he has real evidence he should have turned it over to the FBI by now, assuming that the FBI did not already have it.

 

Mr. Moto is a side show in this circus. IMHO

[Barky]

I wonder if the "scrape" wasn't suppose to be scraps? Seems to me, there would be very few things on someone's body that would scrape painted metal...it may have been from his watch, teeth, or maybe something like a chair............the chair has me going now...does anyone know if the 2nd chair should be visible in that pic? Would there have been enough room to not see it in the pic??

 

How about a belt?

[Barky]

As far as GS's state of mind, we will probably never know that, but as I watched Oprah last week, I noticed something, so I went back to get it today. You know how they show all of the pix of the loving/happy couple on their cruise, well, here is a pic that really disturbed me, and there was also one apparently taken a while before this one, which appears to be in the dining room, where they seemed to be OK with each other. Then this one, where she clearly has her head up against another person, perhaps a man, who's face is blurred out...look at George's face.....does he look happy with what's going on in the pic?

 

Not good quality since I took it from the dvd, to my camera, but you can see it clearly enough.....

 

http://1corona4u.smugmug.com/photos/53853437-M.jpg

 

He looks like he's thinking, what to do next with this, and obviously some concern......or I'm reading more into that moment in time...but since it's a candid shot, and given what Jen is doing, I don't think so.......

 

Man you are good. Those pics were flying by so fast on Oprah I could barely make out anything, LOL. Eagle eye that's what I'm calling you.