Thursday, December 15, 2011

An update on the Carlson case

Deckboss doesn't have time right now to get into the particulars, but he can advise you of a little news with regard to the long-running Carlson case.

The Alaska Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in the matter starting at 10 a.m. today.

For background on the case and the stakes involved, here's a piece by yours truly from the June 2010 issue of Pacific Fishing magazine:

Carlson case grinds on

The Alaska Legislature in April appropriated nearly $75 million to repay nonresident commercial fishermen for overcharges on permit fees. Thousands of fishermen could receive a piece of the money. But don't start looking for a check just yet.

The potential refunds stem from the Carlson class-action lawsuit — litigation so lengthy and contorted it evokes the Dickens novel "Bleak House."

Outside fishermen sued the state in 1984, upset Alaska charged them triple what residents paid for fishing privileges.

The epic case has made four trips to the Alaska Supreme Court. The suit has succeeded in equalizing the annual "base fee" all fishermen pay to obtain or renew a permit — though nonresidents continue to pay a "surcharge" of $140.

Anyway, government lawyers have battled with considerable success through the years to whittle down the state's liability under Carlson. Out of a class that once numbered 95,000 members, only 4,705 now stand to receive any money. These are limited entry permit holders; crew license holders no longer qualify for refunds.

Under the latest ruling from state Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski, the state owes about $12.4 million in refunds plus $62.4 million in interest.

While the Legislature has appropriated these sums, that doesn't mean the state is yet prepared to pay out the money. No, this 26-year court fight is not over.

On March 24, the state attorney general appealed the Carlson case again to the Alaska Supreme Court, asking the justices to either toss the $62.4 million in interest or apply a lower interest rate.

What does it all mean?

"We're not about to cut checks," said Bill McAllister, spokesman for the attorney general.


Anonymous said...

Typical, screw the crew program from Lance Nelson, and associates...a court-martial, from Marshall is way past due.

"Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more - it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse. The mind can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of the one nation into the ports of the other, and be confined to prescribing rules for the conduct of individuals in the actual employment of buying and selling or of barter. If commerce does not include navigation, the government of the Union has no direct power over that subject, and can make no law prescribing what shall constitute American vessels, or requiring that they shall be navigated by American seamen."

Anonymous said...

Been left behind long?

Anonymous said...

Twenty-six years in court! Does anybody know what is this case costing the state?

Anonymous said...

Try to get a CD today at 12%, the greatest Certificate of Deposit seen since Jimmy Carter, and Jay Hammond.

The welfare state from peanut farmers and set-netters who could not make it peanut farming or setnettin.

I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving - we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it - but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


Anonymous said...

Thanks Deckboss,

They need to pay up, 12% is a bargain!

Anonymous said...

I would make a much better judge than a long winded lawyer.





Anonymous said...

Alaska charges 12% on delinquent fees.
If they can charge that rate then they can pay that rate.
Seems fair to me.
Look up :
Alaska Statute AS 43.05.225

Anonymous said...

More than a few of the payees have died, time to collect $$$

Anonymous said...

The state of Alaska should be proud of themselves, they have drawn this out far longer than Exxon did with the oil spill case. Good for you Lance, you beat their record, now pay up. What scum.

Anonymous said...

Alaska should pay 10 fold to an estate that is due this settlement. Holding out 27 years until someone is dead is criminal.

Anonymous said...

Someone really should find out who is resposible for holding this up for so long and start a new case to imprison them, ALL OF THEM! If this isnt a criminal act I dont know what is. It should be made a top story on all nightly news sources with the names of the people responsible. They are the criminals. Give them all 27 years!

Anonymous said...

I agree. Start with Bill McAllister, who sounds happy that they're not "cutting any checks"

Anonymous said...

Ever read about the old Corrupt Bastards Club?

"We're not about to cut checks," ?

What a concept, in a criminal violation, when we cut a check?

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.

"We're not about to cut a check?"


Sounds like Bill McAllister, might need an education, just like Lance Nelson and his gang...

Anonymous said...

Having trouble counting to 10?

"...No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets..."

The old Corrupt Bastards Club Headquarters where everyone knows what Calhoun Street "IS" Juneau!

Anonymous said...

Or was it number 42 United States Code 1983, for "Individual Capacity" Crimes, under title 18 of the Criminal Code from the big confusing #42, writing anonymously...

"...The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in one part of the article, free citizens in another, and people in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States...."

"Last Bridge to Nowhere" former prison director Frank B. Prewitt....Page 1, "Prisons are a dirty business...."

Anonymous said...

The French sure had one thing right, the guillotine. To cut, or not to cut.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Hey Deckboss, Can you please give us an update on this hearing?

No one else will.

Anonymous said...

It's my money and I want it NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I think the atate needs to send me 27 years of permit cards in advance, and I'll pay them later. How about that Lance Ahole' Nelson?

Anonymous said...

Of course even the simple term "Fishery" is another very confusing term of english, for Lance Nelson and Associates! IQ=0
The Alaska Supreme Court, where Lancelot is also a confusing English Subject matter.

Grunert 1, for a confused 1, Lance Nelson?
Because 5 AAC 15.359 conflicts with both the Limited Entry Act's definition of “fishery” and stated purposes, we need not reach Grunert's constitutional claims.   We REVERSE the superior court's grant of summary judgment to the board and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Grunert 2,
Also for Lance Nelson and imbeciles in the Governors Mansion for Imbeciles, the Board of Imbeciles and Fish, with their best friend Nelson, who Admiral Nelson, would have hung off a yard arm decades ago.
"Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough."
Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes

Grunert 2,
"We Repete that Command Here."

When one reviews this lawyers legal history, and the upcoming criminal and civil costs involving his invalid legal definitions, this $80,000,000.00 model will look like chump change.

"Please carefully read the instructions on second page before answering the questions.
1) What regulatory area, fishery, and gear type does this restructuring proposal affect?"

The Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded I Vote Imbecile, Lance Nelson!

Anonymous said...

How about all those legislators and appealing attorneys not getting their paychecks "cut" until this 27 year overdue bill is paid.

C'mon your Honor, put some teeth in the judgement and settle this mockery!

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit has been going for 1/2 history of the state. They wouldn't be crying about the interest rate, if they PAID THE SETTLEMENT!

Anonymous said...

Just like the Kvichak Set Netter's Association, and Hammond's theories from the Confederate Party, using that "special allocation" within Hammond's favorite fishing district?

The West Side Story, a carpetbagger, who flunked his republican party education at Troy New York.
1776 Sixth Ave...
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Anonymous said...

I will bet that Bobbyt will apply for benefits under this case since he lives in Shoreline, after all, that is where he listed his residence on numerous APOC political contributions.

There isn't a government handout he hasn't turned down yet, which is funny since he is such a Republican.

Anonymous said...

To the last comment, This isn't a "government handout" Do your homework!
This is paying back for overcharging the hard working fishermen that built the fishing industry over the last 50 years, and they deserve every red cent and then some. Plain and simple! Throw your name calling idiotic remarks elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

I was a non-resident from 1990 fishing season through december 03-2003.

I've been a resident from March 1965 through February 1990 and from December 3, 2003 to present

I'm giving the state back my $5000 in nonresident fees.

Indeed I think that 10 times the fees for nonresidents would work and I would have no problem paying if I indeed ever moved back south.

The resident Chinook sport tag I get every year is free ( or really cheap) to me as an Alaskan resident and costs a hundy or so for non-residents.

My deer tags are free but if I come in from 'outside' they cost a hundy or so. Moose tag is free for me but 500 bucks for a nonresident.

Heck, I'm practically a subsistence user as a Juneau personal user. If I start spending more time in my Kupreanof place I'll be totally subsistence. Same as Al Kookesh.

But back to fishing.
Isn't charter fishing commerce?

Doesn't it make it that commercial?

So why can the state charge an infinitesimal amount for sport differentials and just some token bullshit slight addon-- last I checked it's about 20-30% or something-- for non-resident real commercials?

I'm giving my money back, and if you think it's newfound contrition go ask Bruce T and Mary McDowell, who were both CFEC commissioners when I made that pledge back when Knowles was in town in 1998. I want it to go to ADFG of course. They are the rock stars who deserve it.

If more than a token few of you who ever read this recognized the fragile existence and relationship we enjoy with communities like Anchorage, Fairbanks, Wasilla, Eagle River, etc. you just might have a frigging clue as to why this whole bullshit payout ( and i apologize in advance for those of you with multiple permits who got a bit of the shaft---but take a minute to think about it) is a bad bad bad thing for Alaskan fishermen.

Headline: State of Alaska pays 70 million or whatever to non-resident commercial fishermen.

Cripes, the legislature and Governor haven't ever given RESIDENT Commercials ANY monies.
Nor would they.

EVER. Sure there's management funds, docks and harbor improvements, but no get down straight up cash deal to fishermen.

I do, however, recognize the major contribution that non-residents make and in some cases, such as multiple herring permits, pounding, etc etc, there could have been a combo permit or something on renewal.

And the fact is that for most of the period from 1991-2006 many of us salmon guys were just turning dollars for the state, taxes, cities, grub, gear, mechanics, shipyards ( not like we don't still do that now) but then we were getting less than a janitors salary once all the bills were paid.

So you want to encourage a non-resident who comes to your state, sets up a business come thick or thin and then sticks around and keeps employees on and so forth for years and years even when there is no money in the fishery.

Having said that, there is a basic differential, using harbors, facilities (garbage disposal in SE costs 6.25 cents a pound- or more than we were getting for pinks in 2002-2004), etc, and the state management apparatus (of course it's just cobbled together with massively insufficient various federal and state funds because the state leadership still thinks this is a 'do it yourself' industry or lacks the ability to turn the corner and treat us like a viable, long term, sustainable (therefore investment-worthy) industry.

This Carlson case might be a great windfall for some of you but it's a real black eye for Commercial Fishing in Alaska.

Better that it all went away.

Heck in WA state, the differential is nearly triple what is paid for nonresidents in Alaska. There's just no Carlson to come down from Alaska to sue.

I know. I pay non-resident for my puget sound license. And when I go sport fishing, duck hunting or anything else in WA state.


Anonymous said...

What if you had $150,000 coming back? I bet you would have a different opinion.

Anonymous said...

yeah it would. if i felt i'd been picked on for multiple permits i'd keep some.

but i'd give some back too.

recall, in 1998, i was still a nonres curently collecting interest and years of paying triple when i made the pledge to the cfec commissioners to give the money back.

at that time i had no idea how much it was.

but it is a bit ridiculous, i'd imagine, if you were running a 17 permit setnet site, catching the same amount of fish as a one permit operation and paying 17 times more.

but most of those fisheries that don't produce as much income are re-evaluated each few years to make sure that the CFEC charges are commensurate to the fishery value.

in any event. keep most of it.

but even if there were a few of us past or current non-residents who decided to give the state back 50 bucks or 500 or 5000 bucks out of our Carlson monies, that'd make an impact of support for the ADFG, CFEC, and commercial fisheries in the great state of Alaska.

or one could contribute to their local association.

believe it. if the state of Alaska pays this out it will be a blight on the entire commercial fishing industry.

part of the good that will come from it is that most of us just pour money into our operations anyways so the majority of this money will go into the pockets of mechanics, ports and harbors, shipwrights, fuel, insurance, boat and fishing privilege payments...

anyways. someone in the state should have cut a deal with the dude from juneau who's getting 1/3 of the money. this loren dude has held onto this one with amazing tenacity.

wouldn't you think he'd just settle for enough to retire on. just in the state's interest and commfish's interest.

and tell me, the guy who's getting $150,000. What'd he pay in 'excessive permit fees'-- probably around $25,000. Or less.

It's a windfall that will give us all a black eye.


Anonymous said...

Bobbyt @
Very generous of you to pledge money that we haven't received.
Very noble to keep so quiet about your "non-donation".
More money is generated for Alaska by all these permits, and most of the plaintiffs have become residents in any case.

Anonymous said...

Most plaintiffs have become residents?

Less than 1% on the list


Anonymous said...

Whats fair is fair, if you had a standing debt with the State of Alaska, or any other State or Government agency would you have the ability to string it out 20 plus years? NO! And if you tried you would ultimately loose your house and everything you own!

The state is wrong, and it has been proven they were wrong. Its all simple political GREED! Especially when you think about all the fishermen putting there lives on the line for 10 months a year. Its a bigger picture than you are stating. I think your insane for giving back one nickel to any state or Government.

How much money did all these guys generate for the state of Alaska by delivering product over all these years? The list goes on and on for the revenue generated by commercial fishermen in Alaska.

Not only should they pay every red cent, but again I say Charges need to be pressed and people should be locked up for dragging this out for so long. Put this story on the world / local nightly news an get faces and names out there and watch these cowards squirm! They are criminals!

Anonymous said...

bobby you are SO FULL OF IT!

Once again so stupid that I think it must be someone else trying to besmirch the name of bobbyt, could be nothing else!

Say it aint so.

Anonymous said...

booby t ,

your self serving bullshit really gets old. how about giving some great lakes pike fishing a go for a decade or two and let our Alaska resource thrive without you trying to skim, steal and cajole your way to financial freedom. AMF

Anonymous said...

AMF.. WTF does that mean.

Live here. Love it here. Own houses all over SE with lots of land. Not going anywhere else. Ever.


ps just filled out my pfd. and am going trout fishing all summer next year.

in southeast that is.

Joe L-nonres said...

Yes it is a sad day for Alaskan fishermen/women. The Carlson case has been followed closely, especially by non-residents. As I understand the case, the issue was discrimination against non-residents. Non-residents were paying about triple versus residents for their Limited Entry Permits. An entry permit is a piece of property,a license is something you pay for yearly. Non-residents were being charged discriminately more because they were living out of state. If a non-resident happened to own some real estate should he pay triple for his property taxes also?

Alaska made a mistake. The first court ruling saw it and judged on it. Alaska appealed, then lost again and appealed again and again. Throughout these costly appeals Alaska got the crews eliminated based on the crews having licenses. The permit owners retained their portion of the judgement plus the Alaska rate of interest, and the meter was supposedly running. It seems pretty simple to me that Alaska made a mistake and was judged on it. Alaska even appropriated the money for the judgement, but the attorney general decided to appeal once again. I believe this is number five. The court ruled to drop about fifty million ( interest charges) and that's our justice system. Very reminisent of the Exxon case. Just keep appealing (money wins) until you win (in the case of Exxon it was drag it out until you got favorable Supreme court judges, maybe this was the same strategy). I feel badly for residents and nons because the system is flawed. It shouldn't take twenty some years to decide on anything! Exxon did it, now the state of Alaska has. This is what is sad to me. I can live with a decision done in a timely manner, maybe one appeal, but this is ridiculous.

Joe Lindholm - non-resident