Iran’s oil tanker the Grace 1 was seized on July 4 by British Marines,
and taken to Gibraltar for detention. Gibraltar announced it was free to
leave as of Thursday, rejecting a US attempt to have it given to them
instead, but it was only on Sunday that the ship finally left Gibraltar.
The tanker, which is now the Adrian Darya 1, slowly sailed off from Gibraltar,
stopping and restarting a few times on the way. Officials indicated
that the tanker would deliver the oil somewhere in the Mediterranean
that was also definitely not Syria.
Though the Gibraltar courts rejected the US bid to seize it, a US
District Court judge has issued a warrant allowing federal marshals to
try to take over the ship, and the oil, as an asset forfeiture.
Iran’s Navy has said they are prepared to send a military escort, if
necessary, to prevent the tanker being seized by the US. It’s not clear
if that has happened at this point, or indeed that the US Marshal
service has any means to practically try to capture the tanker on its
own just because courts said they could try.
I hope they will try – and hopefully receive a “bloody nose” in the process.
The US is all Gung Ho about “freedom of navigation” but obviously not all Nations are free – only those who are subservient to the US.
“Officials indicated that the tanker would deliver the oil somewhere in the Mediterranean that was also definitely not Syria.”
Does it matter if it’s not being sent to Syria? Hasn’t the bully let it be known that Iran can’t sell oil to ANYBODY?
Seizing a ship off the high seas would be a pretty clear act of war … Is the US prepared to go there?
Sure, israel has done it twice and in response to high seas piracy, the world did nothing except when it comes to Somali pirates.
That’s the whole point – get a war started.
The US, God knows, has had a huge number of officials who will go down in history books as profound and utter despicable human beings. I think bolton and pompeo will have set a new low when they ride off into the dust bin.
Along with their boss.
I couldn’t agree more, Taras .. The US, God knows, has certainly had a huge number of officials who’ll go down in history books as profound and utter despicable human beings. I’m certain Bonkers Bolton and Pompous Pompeo will have set a new low when they ride off into the dust bin.
How have the Iranian courts ruled on the matter regarding something they would have a valid reason for ruling on, instead of some court in the US that has no jurisdiction over Iranians.
You have a valid point there, John Wells, and I wholeheartedly agree.
From now on Bolton & US Marshals have to dream taking over this tanker! Sweat dream….But be careful John, someone may shave your beautiful whiskers while you’re sleep making you incapacitated when you wake up!
What’s the point of having a 3 trillian dollar Navy if you can’t steal $800,000 of oil with it ?
The Jason Ditz article misrepresents, gravely, the Warrant received by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. Mr. Ditz misrepresented the Warrant likewise in his 16 August 2019 article “US Court Issues Warrant to Seize Iranian Tanker, Oil From Gibraltar.” Mr. Ditz needs to stop publishing fake news. Or is he seeking to be employed by the Washington Post or the New York Times?
The warrant does NOT command, order, or even authorize seizure of the ship or the oil it carries.
Rather, the proposed Warrant (and it is, yet, merely a proposed Warrant) provides only that “THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S SERVICE AND/OR [sic] ANY OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER” serve the ship and all interested parties a notice that, according to the party (the United States government) seeking the seizure “the defendant property is subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).”
The proposed Warrant ends thus:
“YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to provide notice of this action to all persons thought to have an interest in or claim against the defendant property by serving upon such persons a copy of this warrant and the Verified Complaint In Rem, in a manner consistent with the principles of service of process of an action in rem under the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED, promptly after execution of this process, to file the same in this Court with your return thereon, identifying the individuals upon whom copies were served and the manner employed, UNLESS [my emphasis], pursuant to Rule G(3Xc)(iiXA) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the defendant properties are in the government’s possession, custody, or control, or pursuant to Rule G(3)(c)(iv), execution of the warrant involves transmission to an appropriate authority outside the United States where the property is located.”
The government bears the burden of proving that the United States District Court of the District of Columbia has jurisdiction sufficient to support enforcement of the Warrant, and nothing indicates that the government has proven so.
The government bears the burden of proving that the Warrant’s issuance would be valid, and nothing indicates that the government has proven so.
I find no record indicating that the Warrant was signed by a JUDGE of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia.
Here is a copy of the Warrant: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1196366/download
Notice that the warrant misstates, by three months not yet occurred, the date of the Warrant. See the Warrant’s second paragraph, lines 2 & 3 of that paragraph.
“The warrant does NOT command, order, or even authorize seizure of the ship or the oil it carries.”
“YOU ARE, THEREFORE, HEREBY COMMANDED to serve the defendant properties, thus bringing, within the jurisdiction of the Court, the said defendant property”
Once it is served, it is to be treated as within the jurisdiction. The service is the introduction to the seizure. “You’ve been served — now GET ON THE GODDAMN DECK WITH YOUR HAND BEHIND YOUR HEAD.”
Your comment’s final paragraph conflicts, sorely (a) with the language of the Warrant and the fact that the “Warrant” is only the government’s proposal, not a judicial act, (b) with U.S. Admiralty and Maritime law and U.S. rules of civil procedure, (c) with the international law of the conflict of laws, (d) with the law of nations, and (e) with international maritime law.
Possibly with b, c, d, and e. But with respect to a, it IS the plain language of the warrant.
More specifically, it is a Warrant for Arrest in Rem.
Arrest in Rem is seizure of property after a court has already issued a forfeiture order.
The warrant orders the US Marshals Service to arrest (that is, seize) the property, and to serve persons presently in possession of the property with the warrant by way of explanation.
(1) You do not understand admiralty law.
(2) Your argument disproves itself.
(3) You are not able to READ.
(4) Also, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_C
The Warrant’s plain language eludes your brain.
Either you are not a lawyer, or you ought not be.
All words take their meanings from all other words, the whole context.
Also, the ship and its cargo cannot be within U.S. judicial jurisdiction unless and until the ship and its cargo are within U.S. territorial jurisdiction (including its waters) or U.S. foreign land-possessions and their territorial waters.
Also, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_C
Deleted by the author.