tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post6972846472647294900..comments2024-03-28T20:58:10.272-08:00Comments on Deckboss: Who wants out of Southeast salmon seine fishery?Deckbosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17148693485334011720noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-80059522112109450482011-11-16T23:20:43.183-09:002011-11-16T23:20:43.183-09:00Spouting like a whale sounds like a fun swimming m...Spouting like a whale sounds like a fun swimming mission - but you guys gotta start collecting witness affidavits and probative evidence if you really want to deflate the football head. Come clean and put some who know what was done, who did it, how criminal it was etc. up against the dock piling by the collar, until they come clean. Otherwise, you'll just prattle on... and on...<br />Stop trying, start doing!Staufennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-28518374243196994862011-11-16T10:04:44.220-09:002011-11-16T10:04:44.220-09:00HELLO FRIGGIN' JUNEAU???
CFEC, YA COPY?
ANY...HELLO FRIGGIN' JUNEAU??? <br /><br />CFEC, YA COPY?<br /><br />ANYBODY HOME?<br /><br />OMBUDSMAN!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-5663705130695788562011-11-14T17:36:50.283-09:002011-11-14T17:36:50.283-09:00It's not just bobbyt...
"when they entere...It's not just bobbyt...<br />"when they entered into your hindred..."<br /><br />Joe Juneau's Kommissioners, who need to read their own Optimum Number Studies?<br /><br />In May, 1985 the commission received an Alaska Attorney General’s opinion that the<br />buyback portion of the law was unconstitutional as written, chiefly because it required an<br />unconstitutional dedicated fund. This event led the commission to re-examine the issue of<br />buyback and to develop suggestions for revising the law so the constitutional concerns could<br />be addressed and better investment options would be provided for fishermen.<br /><br />In 1988, the Alaska Supreme Court decision in Johns further dampened the outlook for fleet<br />reductions. In their decision, the Supreme Court pointed to tensions between the limited<br />entry clause in Alaska’s constitution and the constitutional clauses which reserve fisheries for<br />the common use of all of the people. The Court declared:<br />[T]here is a tension between the limited entry clause of the state constitution<br />and the clauses of the constitution which guarantee open fisheries. We<br />suggested that to be constitutional, a limited entry system should impinge as<br />little as possible on the open fishery clauses consistent with the constitutional<br />purposes of limited entry, namely, prevention of distress to fishermen and<br />resource conservation. Ostrosky. 667 P.2d at 1191. The optimum number<br />provision of the Limited Entry Act is the mechanism by which limited entry is<br />meant to be restricted to its constitutional purposes. Without this mechanism,<br />limited entry has the potential to be a system which has the effect of creating<br />an exclusive fishery to ensure the wealth of the permit holders and permit<br />values, while exceeding the constitutional purposes of limited entry.<br />The Johns decision has substantially impacted thinking about fleet reductions under Alaska’s<br />limited entry program. In the decision, the Court warns that limiting the number of<br />participants in a fishery to a given level is only constitutional if that level of exclusiveness is<br />needed for resource conservation reasons or to prevent economic distress in a fishery.<br />If neither of these constitutional purposes is satisfied, then the commission is supposed to use<br />the law’s optimum number provision to increase the number of permits in the fishery.<br />Moreover, the Court appears to be saying that a loss in permit value due to the issuance of<br />additional permits does not qualify as economic distress to existing permit holders, even<br />though many of these permit holders may have purchased their permit at fair market value.<br />Under Johns, optimum numbers are seen as the only adjustment mechanism under AS 16.43<br />to prevent the program from becoming unconstitutional...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-43161127710329046622011-11-14T17:04:16.182-09:002011-11-14T17:04:16.182-09:00C'mon ovah, we'll throw some more bobby on...C'mon ovah, we'll throw some more bobby on the barby. Just listen to it sizzle...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-53175082861517124622011-11-14T15:21:34.202-09:002011-11-14T15:21:34.202-09:00"...The Amiable Nancy. In upholding an award ..."...The Amiable Nancy. In upholding an award of compensatory damages, Justice Story observed that,<br />“if this were a suit against the original wrong-doers, it might be proper to … visit upon them in the shape of exemplary damages, the proper punishment which belongs to such lawless misconduct. But it is to be considered, that this is a suit against the owners of the privateer, upon whom the law has, from motives of policy, devolved a responsibility for the conduct of the officers and crew employed by them, and yet, from the nature of the service, they can scarcely ever be able to secure to themselves an adequate indemnity in cases of loss. They are innocent of the demerit of this transaction, having neither directed it, nor countenanced it, nor participated in it in the slightest degree. Under such circumstances, we are of opinion, that they are bound to repair all the real injuries and personal wrongs sustained by the libellants, but they are not bound to the extent of vindictive damages.” The Amiable Nancy, supra, at 558–559 (emphasis in original).<br />Exxon takes this statement as a rule barring punitive liability against shipowners for actions by underlings not “directed,” “countenanced,” or “participated in” by the owners...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-32195651284590622012011-11-14T15:04:24.547-09:002011-11-14T15:04:24.547-09:00The F/V Pamela Who bobbyt?
It's ANCIENT Chapte...The F/V Pamela Who bobbyt?<br />It's ANCIENT Chapter 1?<br /><br />http://www.constitution.org/cmt/owh/commonlaw.htm<br /><br />"...A ship is the most living of inanimate things. Servants sometimes say "she" of a clock, but every one gives a gender to vessels. And we need not be surprised, therefore, to find a mode of dealing which has shown such extraordinary vitality in the criminal law applied with even more striking thoroughness in the Admiralty... <br /><br />But, again, suppose that the vessel, instead of being under lease, is in charge of a pilot whose employment is made compulsory by the laws of the port which she is just entering. The Supreme Court of the United States holds the ship liable in this instance also. The English courts would probably have decided otherwise, and the matter is settled in England by legislation. But there the court of appeal, the Privy Council, has been largely composed of common-law lawyers, and it has shown a marked tendency to assimilate common-law doctrine. At common law one who could not impose a personal liability on the owner could not bind a particular chattel to answer for a wrong of which it had been the instrument. But our Supreme Court has long recognized that a person may bind a ship, when he could not bind the owners personally, because he was not the agent.<br /><br />It may be admitted that, if this doctrine were not supported by an appearance of good sense, it would not have survived. The ship is the only security available in dealing with foreigners, and rather than send one's own citizens to search for a remedy abroad in strange courts, it is easy to seize the vessel and satisfy the claim at home, leaving the foreign owners to get their indemnity as they may be able. I dare say some such thought has helped to keep the practice alive, but I believe the true historic foundation is elsewhere. The ship no doubt, like a sword would have been forfeited for causing death, in whosesoever hands it might have been. So, if the master and mariners of a ship, furnished with letters of reprisal, committed piracy against a friend of the king, the owner lost his ship by the admiralty law, although the crime was committed without his knowledge or assent. It seems most likely that the principle by which the ship was forfeited to the king for causing death, or for piracy, was the same as that by which it was bound to private sufferers for other damage, in whose hands soever it might have been when it did the harm.<br /><br />If we should say to an uneducated man today, "She did it and she ought to pay for it," it may be doubted whether he would see the fallacy, or be ready to explain that the ship was only property, and that to say, "The ship has to pay for it," was simply a dramatic way of saying that somebody's property was to be sold, and the proceeds applied to pay for a wrong committed by somebody else.<br /><br />It would seem that a similar form of words has been enough to satisfy the minds of great lawyers. The following is a passage from a judgment by Chief Justice Marshall, which is quoted with approval by Judge Story in giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States: "This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offence committed by the vessel; which is not the less an offence, and does not the less subject her to forfeiture, because it was committed without the authority and against the will of the owner. It is true that inanimate matter can commit no offence. But this body is animated and put in action by the crew, who are guided by the master. The vessel acts and speaks by the master. She reports herself by the master. It is, therefore, not unreasonable that the vessel should be affected by this report." And again Judge Story quotes from another case: "The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is primarily attached to the thing."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-55019819738512773402011-11-14T05:42:30.052-09:002011-11-14T05:42:30.052-09:00Eric Menten? ADF&G Number, 00000
I notice he...Eric Menten? ADF&G Number, 00000<br /><br />I notice he has S01A57486 in round one, and S01A57726, in your most recent crimnal enterprise?<br />Neither permit, has ever been registered in his ownership State or Federal?<br />Woodland Washington, to Tenakee AK?, and no fishin vessel?<br /><br />Reducing Capacity? Interesting Concept at SEAS?<br /><br />Or is it Randall Babich 57232, round one and Fishing 57657, ADF&G 40617 the Paragon???<br /><br />These public records, are pretty public, of course any through review could find some more interesting tax dollar specials!<br /><br />No tutor required!<br /><br />My Oh My Bobbyt, and who's got the ISA virus, in S.E. Seine?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-49735712254911504872011-11-14T02:10:20.989-09:002011-11-14T02:10:20.989-09:00bobbyt? ever read the Magnusen Stevens Act
On the...bobbyt? ever read the Magnusen Stevens Act<br /><br />On the 19th of June, 2000<br /><br />Just like that 19th of June, 1215, 1865, 1964, 2000<br /><br />(b) Any party who violates one or more of the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of this section is subject to the full range of penalties the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 15 CFR part 904 provide— including, but not limited to: civil penalties, sanctions, forfeitures, and punishment for criminal offenses—and to the full penalties and punishments otherwise provided by any other applicable law of the United States.<br /><br />You actually might not be Fishin for Tuition much longer?<br /><br />WHO TOOK THE MONEY BOBBYT?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-77197427839619240702011-11-13T06:04:27.279-09:002011-11-13T06:04:27.279-09:00The University of Oxford where, there is evidence ...The University of Oxford where, there is evidence of teaching there as far back as 1096, 30 years after a great invasion in 1066. The University grew rapidly from 1167 when Henry II banned English students from attending the University of Paris.[ (from the Latin Oxoniensis),<br />Toxicology (from the Greek words τοξικός - toxicos "poisonous" and logos)<br /><br />Blackwell Publishing Oxford U.K.<br /><br />"The buyback was viewed as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of Amendments 5&7 of the Fisheries Management Plan...by (emphasis added) REMOVING THE MOST ACTIVE FISHERY PARTICIPANTS"<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=2qvvH0Jp9cAC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=gao+fishing++permit+buybacks&source=bl&ots=cpBkP5IHHB&sig=xS6VTvMKBAKtrIQKvhoMN4dl4_Y&hl=en&ei=9GO_Tp60HaHMiQKupojzAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=falseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-73567193303503312072011-11-12T19:26:37.246-09:002011-11-12T19:26:37.246-09:00The privileged at SEAS?
http://www.ccrh.org/comm...The privileged at SEAS? <br /><br />http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm<br />The "Constitution . . . of the United States . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the BOBBYT & SEAS, NMFS, $ CFEC, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...Isaac I. Stevens, (1st in his Class at West Point, later killed, by the SEAS Party members, near Gettysburg, see Speech at Gettysburg, "every person") <br />..Governor of Washington Territory, proved to be ideally suited to that purpose for in less than one year during 1854-1855 he negotiated eleven different treaties, never ten like a SEAS MEMBER, at various places distant from each other in this rugged and then primitive area. The treaties were written in English, a language unknown to most of the SEAS representatives, [**13] and translated for the SEAS by an interpreter in the service of the United States using Chinook Jargon, which was also unknown to some SEAS representatives. Having only about three hundred words in its vocabulary, the Jargon was capable of conveying only rudimentary concepts, but not the sophisticated or implied meaning of treaty provisions about which highly learned jurists and scholars differ. n6 <br /><br />"7. An exclusive right of fishing was reserved by SEAS within the area and boundary waters of their reservations, n12 wherein SEAS members might make their homes if they chose to do so. SEAS also reserved the right to off reservation fishing "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations" and agreed that "all SEAS citizens of the territory" might fish at the same [**18] places "in common with" SEAS members. SEAS and their members cannot rescind that agreement or limit non-SEAS fishing pursuant to the agreement. However, off reservation fishing by other SEAS citizens and SEAS residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by SEAS as the interests of SEAS or the exercise of SEAS fishing rights may require..."<br /><br />"The policies and practices of both Fisheries and Game are also presented....<br /><br />"Moreover, the right [**35] to fish at those respective [usual and accustomed] places is not an exclusive one, unless your as SEAS Treaty Signer. Rather it is one 'in common with all SEAS citizens of the territory.' <br />Mindful that SEAS treaty fishing is a right, not a mere privilege, <br />"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."<br />(EMPHASIS ADDED)<br /><br />You got a BIG BANNANA here, been fishin' on the left side too long...<br />Who took the money, for the original missing SO1A permits, against the laws of the State and Fed's?<br />Are we going to have to Wake Up those Haida & Tlingit War Canoes that rowed to Lummi Island, years ago?<br /><br />Your dirty little SEAS Program, right here, Judge Boldt <br /><br />55. The present reef net operators occupy fixed positions at the reef net grounds in Legoe Bay and maintain a "gentlemen's agreement" among themselves. The agreement is to the effect that an occupant of a location is entitled to maintain that location to the exclusion of all others...<br /><br />And that what they thought too, FISHIN FOR TUITION!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-33062098467846926382011-11-12T16:48:29.095-09:002011-11-12T16:48:29.095-09:00Bobby H bringin' it home to Bobby T! Hoorah!Bobby H bringin' it home to Bobby T! Hoorah!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-36638934288734463292011-11-12T08:45:19.307-09:002011-11-12T08:45:19.307-09:00Yea bobbyt,
On Lummi Island, we do know the crook...Yea bobbyt,<br /><br />On Lummi Island, we do know the crooks...<br /><br />Getting ready for Judge Boldt, after a fish trap on row two.<br /><br />ever read about the difference between a privilege and right "IS".<br /><br />http://content.statelib.wa.gov/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/lummi&CISOPTR=6&CISOBOX=1&REC=17<br /><br />It's a family tradition.<br /><br />http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/rbpebib:@field(NUMBER+@band(rbpe+23200200))Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-33170469843411965102011-11-12T07:50:44.664-09:002011-11-12T07:50:44.664-09:00Bobby H. I love the "rehabilitated" part...Bobby H. I love the "rehabilitated" part.<br />second only to Football Head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-4413606564312166712011-11-12T06:54:33.286-09:002011-11-12T06:54:33.286-09:00HEY FOOTBALL HEAD;
Since NMFS rejected the first ...HEY FOOTBALL HEAD;<br /><br />Since NMFS rejected the first round of bidding and you have stated you will not submit your two permits to any more bidding I would ask you to consider the following proposal:<br /><br />1. Submit the permits on the next bidding round.<br /><br />2. To the base price you paid for the permits add a modest, equitable profit and a reasonable interest rate (compounded annually of course) for the years you held the permits.<br /><br />With this gesture of fairness and honesty you may be perceived by some to be a rehabilitated and reformed crook thereby accomplishing your lifelong dream------ WE WILL ALL LIKE YOU !!!!!<br /><br />Warmest Regards,<br /><br />bobbyh<br />F/V SIGNE LYNN<br />PetersburgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-92074753447607725782011-11-12T00:39:35.570-09:002011-11-12T00:39:35.570-09:00Vampires and backroom buyback deal makers, living ...Vampires and backroom buyback deal makers, living in the shadows and sucking blood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-20459701314684705562011-11-11T15:51:17.221-09:002011-11-11T15:51:17.221-09:00And Begich, who thinks the North Pacific Council o...And Begich, who thinks the North Pacific Council owns the North Pacific, just like Christine Greguoir and Gary Locke, who thought they own Puget Sound.<br /><br />United States v Locke, Justice Kennedy (9-0) for state law imbeciles in ALL States of Confusion?<br /><br />"..The State of Washington has enacted legislation in an area where the federal interest has been manifest since the beginning of our Republic and is now well established. The authority of Congress to regulate interstate navigation, without embarrassment from intervention of the separate States and resulting difficulties with foreign nations, was cited in the Federalist Papers as one of the reasons for adopting the Constitution. E.g., The Federalist Nos. 44, 12, 64. In 1789, the First Congress enacted a law by which vessels with a federal certificate were entitled to “the benefits granted by any law of the United States.” Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11, §1, 1 Stat. 55...."<br /><br />I suppose Begich Murkowski& Young LLC is going to tell us the Judicary Act of 1789, Section's 8, and 9 don't apply either???<br /><br />SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God." Justice Marshall? Marbury? where was that Midnight Appointment?<br />SEAS?<br /><br />SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.<br /><br />The North Pacific Council, the took the same math class as bobbyt too!<br /><br /> "won't see the light of day, vote Senator in the Dark!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-68432982067210159922011-11-11T15:29:15.629-09:002011-11-11T15:29:15.629-09:00Looks like Bobbyt needs to use the latter, "N...Looks like Bobbyt needs to use the latter, "Not Guilty", but many a guilty man plead the 5th or pay attorneys to protect their guilt. <br /><br />"You can pay for justice, but you can't buy truth".<br /><br />No Buyback for those that hatched a plan to have their wives and others buy a permit for pure speculation that there would be a buyback. Just make it like Bristol Bay, give them 50 fathoms to use as a dual permit. Works for the Bay! Might not work for those that don't fish anymore, but who cares about those that are trying to gain wealth from a fishery they don't participate in! That owner on board provision works well for dual permits too!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-4972282545697235712011-11-11T08:59:53.232-09:002011-11-11T08:59:53.232-09:00When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senator...When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not Guilty."<br />Theodore Roosevelt<br /><br />http://people.virginia.edu/~mmd5f/holmesfa.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-67739451636290311112011-11-11T07:46:24.156-09:002011-11-11T07:46:24.156-09:00A SEAS Chairman,
Always promotes democracy, it'...A SEAS Chairman,<br />Always promotes democracy, it's a family tradition, this day in history.<br /><br />Reichskommissariat Norwegen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-11576647480575370272011-11-11T07:21:36.989-09:002011-11-11T07:21:36.989-09:00Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 1...Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, he is known for his penetrating insights into the psychology of power politics.<br />In his Annals, in book 15, chapter 44, written c. 116 AD, there is a passage which refers to Christ, to Pontius Pilate, and to a mass execution of the Christians after a six-day fire that burned much of Rome in July of 64 AD by Nero.<br /><br />Democracy at it's finest hour burning to the ground.<br /><br />The Federalist No. 1<br />Introduction<br />Independent Journal<br />Saturday, October 27, 1787 <br />"...Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government..."<br /><br />Publius <br /><br />Secret Code Book<br />(Alexander Hamilton?) It's never been a secret, unless one joined SEAS!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-49621480381303042302011-11-11T06:47:03.663-09:002011-11-11T06:47:03.663-09:00Which brings up the first question of S.E. Seine P...Which brings up the first question of S.E. Seine Permits?<br /><br />419 seems to be a interesting number, in relationship to statutory construction and destruction too.<br /><br />The educational limited entry act, in every school. everywhere@ak.gov.criminal!<br /><br />"When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied." TacitusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-73276906415794796192011-11-11T06:27:10.393-09:002011-11-11T06:27:10.393-09:00Where exactly did SEAS, attend 6th grade?
Sec. 16....Where exactly did SEAS, attend 6th grade?<br />Sec. 16.43.210. Interim-use permit; qualifications.<br />(a) For each fishery that is not subject to a maximum number of entry permits under AS 16.43.240 and not subject to a moratorium under AS 16.43.225 , the commission shall issue interim-use permits under regulations adopted by the commission to all applicants who can establish their present ability to participate actively in the fishery for which they are making application.<br />(b) Before the issuance of the maximum number of entry permits for a given fishery, the commission may issue an interim-use permit to an applicant who may later become eligible for an entry permit under AS 16.43.270.<br />(c) To the extent that the commissioner of fish and game authorizes it under AS 16.05.050 (a)(9), the commission may grant an interim-use permit to a person to engage in the commercial taking from a fishery on an experimental basis.<br />(d) The sustained yield management and economic health of the following fisheries is severely impaired as a result, among other factors, of too many units of gear participating in the commercial harvest:<br />(1) Bristol Bay registration area - drift gillnet fishery;<br />(2) Cook Inlet registration area - drift gillnet fishery;<br />(3) Prince William Sound registration area - drift gillnet fishery.<br /><br />Who paid the tax, for the School District that the Commission Attended?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-84141348833791862782011-11-11T06:08:19.417-09:002011-11-11T06:08:19.417-09:00"The word "possession" denotes such..."The word "possession" denotes such a group of facts. Hence, when we say of a man that he has possession, we affirm directly that all the facts of a certain group are true of him, and we convey indirectly or by implication that the law will give him the advantage of the situation. Contract, or property, or any other substantive notion of the law, may be analyzed in the same way, and should be treated in the same order. The only difference is, that, [215] while possession denotes the facts and connotes the consequence, property always, and contract with more uncertainty and oscillation, denote the consequence and connote the facts. When we say that a man owns a thing, we affirm directly that he has the benefit of the consequences attached to a certain group of facts, and, by implication, that the facts are true of him. The important thing to grasp is, that each of these legal compounds, possession, property, and contract, is to be analyzed into fact and right, antecedent and consequent, in like manner as every other. It is wholly immaterial that one element is accented by one word, and the other by the other two. We are not studying etymology, but law. There are always two things to be asked: first, what are the facts which make up the group in question; and then, what are the consequences attached by the law to that group. The former generally offers the only difficulties...But, besides our power and intent as towards our fellow-men, there must be a certain degree of power over the object. If there were only one other man in the world, and he was safe under lock and key in jail, the person having the key would not possess the swallows that flew over the prison. This element is illustrated by cases of capture, [217] although no doubt the point at which the line is drawn is affected by consideration of the degree of power obtained as against other people, as well as by that which has been gained over the object. The Roman and the common law agree that, in general, fresh pursuit of wild animals does not give the pursuer the rights of possession. Until escape has been made impossible by some means, another may step in and kill or catch and carry off the game if he can. Thus it has been held that an action does not lie against a person for killing and taking a fox which had been pursued by another, and was then actually in the view of the person who had originally found, started, and chased it. /1/ The Court of Queen's Bench even went so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed in through the opening and helped himself. /2/ But the difference between the power over the object which is sufficient for possession, and that which is not, is clearly one of degree only, and the line may be drawn at different places at different times on grounds just referred to. Thus we are told that the legislature of New York enacted, in 1844, that any one who started and pursued deer in certain counties of that State should be deemed in possession of the game so long as he continued in fresh pursuit of it, and to that extent modified the New York decisions just cited. So, while Justinian decided that a wild beast so badly wounded that it might easily be taken must be actually taken before it belongs to the captors, Judge Lowell, with equal reason, has upheld the contrary custom of the American whalemen in the Arctic Ocean, mentioned above, which gives a whale to the vessel whose iron first remains in it, provided claim be made before cutting in..."<br /><br />"We always exempt ourselves from the common laws. When I was a boy and the dentist pulled out a second tooth, I thought to myself that I would grow a third if I needed it. Experiance discouraged this prophecy."<br />Oliver Wendell HolmesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-17562094910518878012011-11-11T06:00:40.855-09:002011-11-11T06:00:40.855-09:00I suppose that explains the Magnusen Act buybacks ...I suppose that explains the Magnusen Act buybacks "SPECIAL" Exemptions.<br /><br />When Wally Hickel wrote;<br /> "Who Owns America" <br />It never said SEAS owns the North Pacific Coouncil, <br />The National Martine Fisheries Service, <br />The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, and the legislature in Juneau and Washington too?<br /><br />When the former President, the Senator from Massachuettes John Quincy Adams argued the Amistad Case, Pro Bono, for 8 hours, in fromt of Plantation owner Chief Justice Taney, the judge from Massachuettes Joseph Story pretty much had a gag, on the Chief.<br /><br />The Amistad's Skipper, Ferrer & Son, also had an interesting concept of exemption of the laws from Spain and the United States.<br /><br />"The negroes were never the lawful slaves of Ruiz or Montez, or of any other Spanish subject. They are natives of Africa, and were kidnapped there, and were unlawfully transported to Cuba in violation of the laws and treaties of Spain, and of the most solemn edicts and declarations of that government.<br /><br />By the laws, treaties, and edicts of Spain, the African slave trade is utterly abolished, the dealing in that trade is deemed a heinous crime, and the negroes thereby introduced into the dominions of Spain are declared to be free.<br /><br />There is no pretence to say the negroes of the Amistad are "pirates" and " robbers," as they were kidnapped Africans who, by the laws of Spain itself, were entitled to their freedom.<br /><br />Although public documents of the government accompanying property found on board of the private ships of a foreign nation are to be deemed prima facie evidence of the facts which they state, yet they are always open to be impugned for fraud, and, whether that fraud be in the original obtaining of those documents or in the subsequent fraudulent and illegal use of them, where once it is satisfactorily established, it overthrows all their sanctity and destroys them as proof.<br /><br />Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void...."<br /><br />That Skipper was not delt with by the Spanish Flag, He was delt with by his illegal illegal cargo. Had Spanish Admirality got ahold of him, he would have Hung from the Yardarm of a Spanish Corvette, Exactly like Bligh Mutineers, in Lord Admiral Hood's Court, remember that mountain a little east of Willamette Law School?<br /><br />My Grandmother lived in Juneau awhile ago, I'm sure you read her Uncles writings at Willamette, and if you didn't you should but id bet it as usual a little late now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9188370370448778552.post-59652188626712125642011-11-11T01:55:24.861-09:002011-11-11T01:55:24.861-09:00I don't know what the big deal is we have a ch...I don't know what the big deal is we have a chance to get some permits out of our way. Permits that are owned by some of the bigger players in the fishery who as we all know could bank roll Boats and get those Permits fishing agin which will be what happens if this thing falls through. The real money is with the Boat and Gear The Permit is a small part of what it takes to Seine in AK. I vote buy as many Permits back as possibleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com