hamptons dealership, luxury, Southampton

49 Comments by snarko77

1  |  2  >>  

Brookhaven fishermen sue Southampton Town Trustees over residency requirement

"The Town Trustees’ ownership and authority over the control of town bottomlands stems from 17th Century decrees by the then governor general of the colony of New York, Thomas Dongan, and authorized by King James II of England."

So I suppose this means no U.S. governmental body can enact a law which supersedes these rights since they go back to the English Colonial government and grants under the British Monarchy. Well, there still is a government in England and the British Commonwealth still has a monarchy. I have a friend who has a friend who is a barrister to Parliament in London. What if she were able to convince the British to transfer all commercial fishing rights (might as well throw shellfishing in, since Mr. Lomardo brought it up, and hunting too, while we're at it) to the Brookhaven baymen? Not at all likely to happen, but if it did everyone knows that you'd be screaming all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that neither the British Parliament nor the Queen have jurisdiction because we are no longer under their authority.

And that's exactly what we are claiming in State Supreme Court now.

" Feb 12, 09 10:26 AM

Trustees pledge vigilance against horseshoe crab poachers

It's not poaching if it's not illegal.

Your reporters should name some of those cases he keeps writing about because the Southampton attorney's office doesn't seem to know what they are." May 10, 09 12:06 PM

Local lawmakers challenge saltwater fishing license proposal

Let Stuart Vorpahl open a shop in East Hampton that sells whale steaks and piping plover tacos and see how long the Dongan Patent protects him. The Colonial patents also protected "whaling" and "birding" in perpetuity, but the US constitution and federal law has superseded all that. " Jun 14, 09 9:42 AM

Privatmatt -- Seal steaks and porpoise burgers, then -- it's legal to harvest all marine mammals under the Colonial patents. It's federal and State law that prohibits their taking. Let's see Vorpahl challenge those laws." Jun 14, 09 1:59 PM

Kelly -- Don't know about the shark-seal connection around here -- I do know that the bigger "trustee" issue here is that the fish-crats are in breach of their fiduciary duty as trustees for the American seafood consumer in that they have sold us out to the Chinese. We are decimating Chinese waters of their flounder while our waters are paved with fluke which they won't let us catch so the people that own the fish -- the American consumer -- can afford to buy them. That's the real crime in the fishing industry. " Jun 16, 09 6:01 AM

Southampton Town Trustees win suit brought by Brookhaven fishermen

The Judge proclaimed that the Trustees are "a body politic" and not a "a private organization" which he calls a "contradictory description."

So the Trustees are purely a governmental body, according to this ruling. This means, at the very least, that the fact that the Trustees and Bay Constables are making and enforcing laws that govern activities by which they profit -- i.e., commercial fishing and acting as professional hunting and fishing guides -- is a textbook conflict of interest. And -- when this bogus ruling is eventually overturned, as it most certainly will be -- this will officially become a case of criminal profiteering by elected and appointed governmental officials.

Yes -- I do believe congratulations are in order." Sep 1, 09 8:33 PM

You just proved our point -- you legally cannot keep us out for that reason. It's called protectionism and is illegal -- it is especially illegal for government officials to be personally profiting by it." Sep 2, 09 2:51 AM

ridiculous (apt name) -- Are you kidding ...? Your illustrious Trustees are known in local legal circles as a "bayman mafia." They are perpetuating a scheme to create an" illegal zone of commercial exclusivity" keeping fish and crabs that belong to all the people of the State for themselves. And they even say that nonresidents can't fish in the ponds or hunt on the bay without procuring the service of a resident guide -- which the Trustees and Bay Constables are and make quite a bit of money in the process. It is all very illegal and will soon be dealt with properly. Your own resident baymen have more complaints about them then we do but are afraid to speak up.

SusieD -- continuing your analogy -- by the Trustees own admission you don't own the the food in the refrigerator or even the whole appliance -- just the door, as it were. We can't touch the door lest we irreparably damage it -- therefore we can't feed our families by taking the contents. You -- on the other hand -- can take all that you want from our and anybody else's storehouse by virtue of the same laws and Constitutions that we are claiming in this case.

And Private Matt -- Brookhaven Town has the same Dongan Patent property rights as you do -- especially now that the judge has declared the Trustees to be a plain old governmental body. Your whole claim relied on some "archaic legal fiction" (a quote from the Pataki administration) that made the underwater lands the private property of the Trustees. Not a private organization, ergo not private property. You can't keep anyone out of public lands as a private right, especially for legal commercial activity

" Sep 2, 09 1:40 PM

"It is all very illegal and will soon be dealt with properly."

So there is no misunderstanding, what I mean is that I believe the courts will soon be giving all this the proper legal scrutiny." Sep 3, 09 1:42 PM

Private Mat-- t"There is no case where a judge has ruled against Southampton Town's Dongan Patent."

That's "patently" false -- this is the only one you have ever won -- and it won't last long. All this judge did was take a pass knowing it would be appealed no matter how he ruled. Just show his decision to any legal expert -- something you obviously are not.

The only thing Southampton ever established in court is the Trustees existence as a quasi-private entity. And this case quashed that, unless your attorneys decide to appeal it.

You have lost and you don't know it yet -- that's all." Sep 4, 09 12:19 PM

All of the cases you people claim as "winners" have to do with property rights -- who owns what. That has nothing to do with the system of law that must govern the property in question. Just because your Trustees can prove ownership in trust going back to a 300 year-old Colonial document doesn't mean we go back to that system of law. And even under that archaic system there was no exclusive fishing right conveyed to the "freeholders" of the "common ground." The Trustees have already admitted that in court and in the press. We are down to a judge deciding who can control who touches the bay bottom and for what purpose.

Do you really think that the American system of law allows for a municipality to exclude only nonresident duly State licensed commercial fisherman when they disturb their bottom when that municipality has no exclusive migratory species harvesting right? That is a direct violation of federal discrimination law and opens Southampton -- and all the individuals involved in the scheme -- to federal civil penalties, including punitive damages And a federal judge can also make the defendants pay the legal fees. Furthermore, if government officials are profiting directly from the scheme it may also involve criminality.

I like our chances. I would not want to be on the other side of this one." Sep 6, 09 1:26 PM

private matt -- "So with your reasoning snarko77 then Town shellfish permits will no longer be required and I'll be able to clam where ever I want on Long Island."

Shellfishing and finfishing are two different animals in New York. The Towns have jurisdiction to manage shellfishing but not commercial fishing in their waters, the theory being shellfish can't cross Township lines. But even that has been challenged and defeated in the Diemer v Brookhaven case. Township shellfishing exclusivity is another legal fallacy just waiting to be toppled. The Towns can make rules but one of them is not keeping non-resident business people from pursuing their line of work within their boundaries. U.S, citizens have an inherent Constitutional right to ply their trade regardless of residency. Do you think Southampton could keep out-of-town dock builders from working within it's boundaries? They disturb the bottom, too -- a whole lot.

Putting a moratorium on licenses might be within a Town's purview, but the waiting list is not supposed tot be "residents only" .. maybe "resident preference" would be alright, but commercial exclusivity is prohibited by law" Sep 9, 09 10:52 AM

matt -- btw -- the judge's decision rules out the Trustee's ability to keep NY licensed nonresidents from hand harvesting horseshoe crabs -- no jurisdiction over the crabs, no gear attached to the bottom. " Sep 14, 09 7:39 PM

Under your "Colonial Patent" theory of fishing rights, an illegal immigrant who rents half a room on the Southampton side of Eastport has more rights to fish on the east side of Moriches Bay than would a duly licensed U.S. war veteran multi-generational fisherman descended from Thomas Dongan himself who buys a house in the Brookhaven portion of Eastport.

Good thinking ...." Sep 21, 09 9:13 AM

Town Trustees consider legal options to stop the creation of a saltwater fishing license

I wonder how Southampton will be able to put forth their claim when they have admitted in court papers in the Brookhaven Baymen case -- and it has been ruled by a NYS Supreme Court Judge -- that they have no jurisdiction over the fish or the water column -- they can only limit that which disturbs the bay bottom. How can they now say that the State has no jurisdiction to require a salt water recreational permit?" Sep 27, 09 1:51 PM

Judge issues injunction, blocks fishing license enforcement

Now how is this gonna work ...? You will need the license for the beach from Hither Hills to the Point, in all of the ocean, the Peconics and Gardiner's Bay, and Long Island Sound. But if you're on land in those towns you won't be able to get one. In Southold and on Shelter Island you can fish in the creeks for free. In East Hampton it will be a free-for-all in Montauk and Three Mile Harbors and Georgica Pond. And in Southampton you get the creeks, Mecox, Shinnecock and the east half of Moriches Bay. Now that's something to fight for -- NOT!

Oh -- and will nonresidents have to get a licensed resident guide like they do in the lakes and ponds? More money for the moonlighting Trustees and Bay Constables ...!" Oct 1, 09 5:17 PM

As the legal precedents stand right now after the decision in the Brookhaven Baymen case -- the East End Towns have no jurisdiction to limit, manage or prohibit in any way the access to taking of fish for sport or profit in their waters. Southampton admitted in Court documents and Suffolk Supreme Court Justice Mayer ruled that their only interest under the Dongan Patent is in the use of implements that "disturb" the bay bottom. The East End Town's claims in the case against the State requirement for a saltwater recreational license should be covered by res judicata -- i.e. -- issue preclusion. They should not even be able to now raise the issue of their exclusive jurisdiction to manage fishing within their boundaries. The fact is that in order to get the Town license to fish commercially (which the Towns actually have no jurisdiction to require) the stated prerequisite is that the applicant produce a NYS foodfish permit that shows Town residency. How can they now claim that the DEC has no jurisdiction to require a recreation license?

Are they now going to start telling non-resident sport fishermen -- as they are telling us non-resident baymen -- that they can fish in the waters, they just can't touch the bottom with anything like anchors or lead sinkers? Imagine the hub bub that would bring ...." Oct 3, 09 2:02 PM

Correction -- "res judicata" is "claim preclusion", for you legal purists ...;-p" Oct 3, 09 2:11 PM

You people not from the East End have to realize that those Towns are not on your side. There is this illegal scheme in place whereby they declare their underwater lands to be quasi-private property. They already have laws that keep out non-resident NYSDEC licensed hunters, fresh water recreational fishermen and commercial baymen. Where they are going with this is to do the same thing in the bays and creeks. For some strange reason that no one I have talked to can explain to me the DEC has been letting them get away with this for all these years. All the signs are that that is about to change. There is no way that State lawmakers are going to let them get away with not having the recreational license where a big chunk of the fishing in the State happens.

In our form of government governors do not make laws -- legislators do. How does a decree from a 17th Century English Colonial governor trump US and NYS Constitutions, federal and State law ...? Let the East End politicians explain that one ...." Oct 6, 09 11:17 AM

INS -- The first part of you comment is completely ludicrous. What survives from Colonial times has to do with geographic jurisdiction -- not jurisprudence. All the laws of the British Colonial government have been repudiated and have been replaced by the American system.

As to the second part of your comment -- the fact that the Trustees don't own the underwater lands but "only manage them in trust" demonstrates what is different about the American system. These are public lands, not private, and as such no one can be denied full and unfettered access to them based on residency. The Public Trust Doctrine applies -- this destroys the Trustees case, PrivateMatt." Oct 7, 09 10:00 AM

"Right to govern" does not mean "how to govern." It is exactly as I said -- it determines "geographic jurisdiction -- not jurisprudence."

I have done plenty of research. The scheme that is in place on the East End was called in court documents by the Pataki administration "an archaic legal fiction" and that is exactly what it is. "These are public lands but for the people of Southampton Township not the public at large." ...? That's what the Public Trust Doctrine says when you read it ...? Ask the people of Greenwich Connecticut what the Supreme Court told them when they tried to keep outsiders away from their exclusive little beach. What you describe is a private property right to exclude which does not exist for any public lands anywhere in the United States or in the United Kingdom for that matter. There is still a monarchy in there, you know -- but even the Queen of England can't help you now ..." Oct 8, 09 3:51 AM

What you people have been doing gives more rights to an illegal alien who rents half a room in the Southampton portion of Eastport than it does a multi-generational East End commercial bayman whose residence is just over the line into Brookhaven.

What would your alter ego Sen. Eugene McCarthy call that scheme ...?" Oct 8, 09 10:35 AM

So, no non resident can touch the bottom or just commercial fishermen . If it's the latter than you are still excluding non resident commercial fishermen using an illegal "backdoor" scheme.

Just try to pull that on non resident sportfisherment and see what happens ...." Oct 8, 09 7:15 PM

I know you've already done that with freshwater sporties -- for those who don't know, your NYS freshwater fishing license counts for naught in Southampton -- you have to pay a resident guide to fish in the lakes or hunt on the bays if you don't live there. Doesn't matter if you're a direct descendant of Abraham Lincoln and a wounded war veteran. But someone who snuck into the Country can fisih and hunt wherever he wants to -- as long as his address is over the border into Southampton. If they win on this saltwater license (never happen, btw) they will be sure to be doing the same thing if you try to anchor or bounce sinkers anywhere within their Dongan Patent boundaries -- and that includes Shinnecock Inlet." Oct 9, 09 10:33 AM

The action is to establish the same rights you now claim and exercise under the Colonial Patents to exclude New York State licensed outsiders from recreational and commercial hunting and fishing. Your Trustees and Bay Constables enjoy financial benefits from this Unconstitutional scheme of exclusion by harvesting the bays and offering their highly paid services as hunting and fishing "guides". Why wouldn't you include saltwater sportfishing in this scam if you were to gain the right to in court?

And being that the Inlet is within the original boundaries of the Dongan Patent, isn't it is included, even if it is underwater now?The barrier beach and marshes are Patent lands as well." Oct 10, 09 7:57 AM

It sounds so old and unique -- "Colonial Patents". But these are not magic words that allow you to rule in some monarchical exclusionary fashion. The fact is that all Township jurisdictions in New York State were established by these documents.

You base your claim in that you still have "Trustees" instead of just Town Boards. What the courts have allowed for is the Trustees acting as quasi-governmental bodies. But no decision could ever or would ever legally allow you to trample on the Constitutional rights of others which is what you are doing. But I expect that that is soon to change." Oct 10, 09 11:51 AM

Ok - so just add the term "pre-Revolutionary War" to the quoted statement.

The action -- if successful -- would void the rights of NYS licensed non-resident recreational fishermen in Town waters, would it not? Right now those people see you as heroes standing up against big tax/big government for all State spotfishermen. But that's not what it is at all, is it ...?" Oct 10, 09 2:45 PM

sportfishermen (oopsy)" Oct 10, 09 2:46 PM

"Southampton Town Code sec. 111.37 as enforcement of compliance with Trustee Rules and Regulations of Southampton, Art. V, sec. 1C states: ' No fish pound, fyke, trap, pot or other anchored device for the taking or keeping of shellfish, fish, eels, crabs, lobsters or conchs, shall be placed in Town waters unless duly authorized by written permission of the Trustees. Permission shall be granted only to Residents and Freeholders.*

"Patently" illegal and Unconstitutional and shall soon be decided thus,
methinks ....

*Quoted from a recent decision by Southampton Town Justice Andrea H. Schiavoni" Oct 10, 09 8:40 PM

And -- Art. III sec. A340-17: "Only residents and student residents may take fish from bodies of fresh water in the Town of Southampton."*

Now why would you limit freshwater fishing and not saltwater, when your Trustees and Bay Constables make so much money as fishing and hunting guides (the only way non residents can fish in freshwater and hunt in your town is to procure the services of a resident guide-- even if they possess a valid New York State license.)

*From the Trustee's web page." Oct 10, 09 9:14 PM

I could fish -- and shellfish -- on his boat in Southampton without moving in with him, according to your laws. How do you say Dongan Patent in Spanish ...?" Oct 13, 09 10:26 AM

Court orders trial for fishing license challenge

It's funny -- in this article FEb. 11, 2009, about the Brookhaven Baymen's lawsuit Jon Semlear said this
:"“We don’t have jurisdiction over the fish that swim in and out of Moriches Inlet ...”
So how can they now claim jurisdiction -- and why is this judge giving them any credence at all? It is all political horse trading, Nothing more." May 12, 10 11:13 AM

Has anybody considered the fact that the Dongan Patent was decreed by a Colonial governor -- and that in the American system of Constitutional representational government governors do not make laws -- they implement what legislatures enact? How is it that these East Enders get an exclusive right of fishing by this archaic document, when British monarchs have not been able to grant such private rights since the signing of the Magna Carta? You cannot look at the language of those ancient decrees and assume you know what they were meant to convey by interpreting the archaic verbiage by today's legal lexicon." May 13, 10 1:18 PM

So you think that means that whatever was legal when the Colonial Patents were decreed is legal now in the patent lands ...? So I can snare some wild peregrine falcons and train them to catch me some piping plovers on the beach in East Quoge and have my Negro slaves cook them up and serve them to me and my guests -- as long as I'm a resident freeholder .. is that what you believe ...? Because if it's not -- then you do believe that Federal and State jurisdiction do prevail over Patent lands." May 14, 10 8:20 PM

It is ludicrous for you people to believe that because you call the governing body "trustees" that you have any rights or privileges beyond what all the other townships have. There has simply been a political deal that used to be about fishing but is now really about oversight of development on the waterfront. And Judge J.J. Jones just blew that one right out of the water for you as it were, in the Dockers case.

Why is it that every one of the "rules and regulations" that your Trustees come up with that are covered by NYSDEC regulations and federal law in the other Towns are virtual carbon copies of what the other Towns must follow? Why don't the Trustees just enact their own size and catch limits, shellfish water quality standards, etc., if the State and federal government don't have jurisdiction? Judge Jones is to be commended for his courage -- the other judges are more worried about their reputations and careers than they are the justice and the law...." May 14, 10 8:39 PM

So you have read and understand all those cases, bigfresh ...? Because I have. Nobody anywhere has recognized the Trustees jurisdiction over managing fishing in navigable waters -- fresh or saltwater. Just read the Southampton Press article from Feb. 11, 2009 "Brookhaven Baymen Sue Southampton ..." -- Semlear admits that they have no jurisdiction over migratory species. The NYS Constitution recognized the Trustees as a governing body -- not any special rights that other Town governments don't have. If you win this case against the saltwater license -- which you won't -- are you going to tell non residents that they can't fish in you bays or surf cast from your beaches unless they hire a resident fishing guide like you do with your freshwater lakes and ponds? Good luck with that one ...." May 16, 10 12:13 PM

You mean how Vorpahl's ticket was taken out of East Hampton Justice Court because he couldn't get a "fair trial" there because of the "publicity" prejudicing the jury pool -- and it was removed to Southampton Justice Court -- where they have all the same publicity -- and bias toward the Trustee system. And there Judge Demayo dismissed it on "speedy trial" issues? Is that the "landmark" case you're referring to? Now what part of that one is the case law you are relying upon ...?" May 19, 10 10:24 AM

bigfresh "The Trustee's power supercedes the DEC whan it comes to managien the Town waters and fisheries."

The Dockers case is presently controlling case law -- and that decision says exactly the opposite. That's why Trustee Fred Havermeyer has been quoted as saying that the Dockers decision threatens the whole Trustee system.

The Appellate Term decision that you claim gives you exclusive rights in your ponds to fish* states that you don't not have jurisdiction in waters in which the fish can swim in and out of your Town. And there has not been any private right of fishery in navigable waters since the signing of the Magna Carta. Even the Englsih Monarchs could not grant such a right. So the verbiage in the Dongan Patent must mean something else ....

*that was actually a split decision against summary judgment motion by the DEC sending it back for trial, which didn't happen because the Trustees made a deal with the State to allow non-residents to fish and then reneged on the deal ten years later," May 19, 10 10:38 AM

Besides all else -- rumor has it that Judge Patrick Sweeney will be retiring in October -- so before there is any trial on the saltwater license issue there will have to be a new judge assigned -- and that judge can do whatever he or she wants with this. There is actually nothing to try -- trials are for deciding issues of fact in dispute. This is entirely made up of legal issues which judges are supposed to decide pretrial.

All the potential triable issues of fact died with Governor Dongan three centuries ago." May 24, 10 10:29 AM

Fishing protest on hold

Name another trade where a working man can lose his license and ability to make a living after being cited for two minor offenses. I mentioned this to a contractor and he said he'd have to at least kill two people before he lost his license.

The only thing that is really wrong, illegal and Unconstitutional in the whole commercial fishing industry is the way we are harassed and persecuted by the State and Federal governments. A friend of mine who is a journalist who had specialized in the Holocaust told me after she became familiar with what we are gong through that it is exactly what the Nazis were doing to the Jews before they came up with the "Final Solution" ...." Jul 8, 10 2:05 PM

State rejects towns' offer to settle fishing license case; fall trial expected.

I believe that Judge Sweeny's injuntion has been appealed to the Appellate Division in Brooklyn. There are three other cases on the same issue -- exclusive Town jurisdiciton over the waters and shoreline areas under the Tustee system Dongan Patent -- also before the same Court. Why should the State settle when any one of these cases could come down in their favor and give them a complete win? Lombardo and the Trustees keep repeating the same old yarn -- about this being "settled law" with "three Supreme Court decisions." There is nothing "settled" about this. But it will be settled soon ...." Jul 29, 10 5:10 PM

Senator Gillibrand visits Montauk in support of local fishing economy

They call fishermen's testimony about what they see in their nets unscientific "anecdotal evidence" and using a provision in the Fisheries act they have convinced the courts that they can only go by "the best availible science" -- "science" being data collected by scientists. But they know the data is faulty and in some cases completely wrong -- as with the 10 years of "Trawlgate" when they had been informed by experts that the net on their one data collecting ship --aptly named "Albatross" - was not set up and would not catch fish. They ingored it for a decade and then finally checked -- found out it wasn't catching fish and then fixed it. But because that is the only "scientifically collected data" we have, we are still using it, by order of the courts. Now -- if they flew the space shuttle that way we'd have a lot more spectacular crash video to look at." Jul 29, 10 5:23 PM

State rejects towns' offer to settle fishing license case; fall trial expected.

Never has any court -- federal, state or otherwise -- effectively held up the exclusive fishing jurisdiction in navigable waters of the East End Towns, or any other municipality. It is s principle that goes back to the Magna Carta and ancient Roman law. The language in the Dongan Patent was to protect the common right of fishing against royalty from granting such exclusive right. You people have turned it inside out and upside down to do exactly the opposite of its original intent." Aug 1, 10 10:08 AM

You people have to read it and interpret it in it's historical/legal context. The jurisdictional dichotomy was not local v state and federal -- it was commonality v royalty. The Dongan Patent is not a King's Grant of exclusivity of domain -- it is exactly the opposite. It is the guarantee that the waters and the wetlands would forever remain "common ground." Translated into modern terms it says that these lands are public not private. It is settled law in the United States that municipalities cannot exclude non-residents from publicly held lands. And it is settled law that no local government has jurisdiction over migratory marine species. " Aug 2, 10 4:42 AM

ICE -- "I don't know about East Hampton, but Southampton has been handling this suit "in house" meaning Assistant Town Attorney Joe Lombardo is representing them. This costs the Town virtually nothing more as his salary is already in the budget."

You should look into this a little further -- Southampton Town has hired outside counsel to help them with these cases. And I'm sure the costs are quite substantial." Aug 3, 10 12:17 PM

"...as for those that visit and vacation take time to enjoy the view...don't ... more try to change it...because when you do ....you're going to regret it and so will future generations."

We're not tourists -- we're your neighbors. And you have an invisible and illegal barrier up against those whose right it is to have free and unfettered access to the navigable waterways within your town for recreational -- and much more importantly -- commercial purposes. Tell your representative government to stop the charade.

Mr. Lombardo -- tear down that wall!!" Aug 7, 10 4:18 PM

Court Agrees: Town Waters Are Exempt From State Fishing License Requirement

Where do I begin -- first off back when Colonial Gov. Dongan penned his patent there was virtually no such thing as saltwater sportfishing. So can commercial baymen piggyback on this ruling? Can those of us who work in town waters sue for retroactive refunds of our DEC license fees? And there's the phrase "not the property of individuals." Private property is exempt from the Dongan Patent -- but the Trustees have always said that they have their rights because they are a private and not a public agency. This ruling displays what's wrong with the policy of local judges being elected by popular vote. Once this gets into courts where the judges are either not Long Islanders (Appellate Division, Court of Appeals) or are appointed and not elected (Federal Courts) we will finally get decisions based on law and not local politics." Dec 19, 10 7:14 PM

Walt "Court decision doesn't change anything."

All the recent decisions are meaningless because all of them are under appeal. The entire issue of Trustee jurisdictions under Colonial Patents will be decided at some higher level than the local Supreme Court. That is really a misnomer as it is the next to lowest level of jurisdiction in the State. The Towns that got added in and now enjoy exempt status from State control of their waters have had numerous rulings against them on this very issue in the highest Court in the State and in federal court. Most local judges would rather be overturned on appeal than to have their named attached to such an unpopular ruling." Dec 27, 10 1:20 PM

Mixed Response To State Fisheries Bill

Have to agree with Leo -- you'll have baymen who never sold a porgy in their lives crowding on a dragger to up the daily quota for that captain who will get the lions share of the profits. Without saving a drop of fuel that would glut the market and cut the profits of legitimate scup fishermen." Mar 7, 13 12:05 PM

1  |  2  >>