Jim Conlin
I'm guessing that this judge is trying to be stupid enough for W to
appoint him to the supreme court.

Er... Jim, if in case you don't (as is evident) understand politics at
all, it was the leftist extremists on the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled
you no longer can own property. Any town or city can now take your
personal or business property away and give to to a developer to make
more money. And you might argue that some of the leftist offenders on
the Court were masquerading as Republicans when they were appointed, but
that doesn't change their real personal view of politics (leftist) from
clouding their judgment. Other examples of this can be found with other
*Republican* pretenders like John McCain, Chaffee, and a few others.

The 2 Bush nominees are the ones who are actually trying to protect your
actual Constitutional rights, unlike the majority on the court who have
consistently used the court to legislate. That isn't opinion. Just read
all the Court's decisions and what was written by the majority and see
for yourself.

From the way this nut sounds, I'm sure you will find he's pretty
solidly left.

And if you can call his last two Supreme Court appointees stupid, you
obviously didn't pay attention to Ted Drunkennedy and the others on the
Inquisition during the nomination hearings. It was a national embarrassment.

OR receive a Freedom Medal.
"Jim Conlin" wrote in message
. ..
I'm guessing that this judge is trying to be stupid enough for W to
appoint
him to the supreme court.


"Mike Harris" wrote in message
news
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:HezOg.45458$ok5.28443@dukeread01...
You better read this. Everyone here is about to be guilty of a criminal
act if we put out boats in the water!

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html

--
Glenn Ashmore

Glenn,

You do understand that Louisiana judges have a reputation in the legal
industry of... er, how shall I put this... a rather poetic interpretation
of
Federal statutes as applied within the state. Texas attorneys are
routinely
advised to steer well clear of "swamp law" wherever possible.

I predict a fairly rapid reversal on appeal.
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
You better read this. Everyone here is about to be guilty of a criminal act
if we put out boats in the water!

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html


Y'all seem have to missed the point. The judge didn't say it was illegal
to fish or hunt out of the main channel, the ruled that hunters and
fishermen don't have the right to hunt or fish on flooded lands that are
normally outside the riverbank...flooded private land.

Iow, if your house is on riverfront property, anyone who walked or drove
into your front yard to hunt or fish would be trespassing. The judge's
ruling only means that it would still be trespassing if the river
overflows and floods your front yard, allowing hunters or fishermen
invade your property by boat...that hunters and fishermen have to stay
IN public waterways...that they don't have the right go anywhere they
want to just 'cuz there happens to be enough flood water over it
temporarily that's deep enough to float a boat.

But as usual, the media found a way to make a big deal out of nothing.



--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...ku=90&cat=1304

As usual Peggie, it looks like most folks had rather get all excited about
something that really "understand" the issue. From the following link:
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=213 we can read what the
judge "really" said.

Here is where Peggie is talking the judge says it is trespassing to be on
someone's property when it's flooded.

James wrote in his ruling. "However, . the court denies to adopt Magistrate
Judge Kirk's recommendation that the plaintiffs have a federal common-law
right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River, up to the high-water mark,
when it floods privately owned land."

Here is where the judge says the banks of the river when not flooded are
subject to public use to the ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.

"Walker Cottonwood Farms' property (where the arrests were made) is a bank
of the Mississippi River and subject to public use to the ordinary
high-water mark, as defined by Louisiana law."

Here the judge says again the judge says the land is open to fish and hunt
TO THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK, but not on to the land that is only
flooded.

"have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property."

Just another case of the idea of "ethics in reporting" is to increase
circulation.

Ken H

"have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property."

You missed a few important words that came in front of that quote:

"But he then reversed course, ruling that the group of anglers did NOT "have
a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property." "

Does that mean that you are restricted to the normal low water line when the
river is flooding or does it mean if it ever floods?

It is pretty well established that you can't go on flooded property when the
body is over its banks but this concerns use of the waters BETWEEN the
normal low and high water marks. In the case of a number of impoundments
where the water level varies considerably that could restrict access to
several hundred yards of water.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

You are correct Glenn, there was some confusion in the way the article was
written.... but from my reading, it "seemed" to say the point he was ruling
on was the normally "not flooded" land that folks did not have access to
when it's flooded. BUT in South LA, there are times it's really hard to
determine what is "ordinary high-water" because the land can flood every
spring.

Is land that "normally floods each season" considered as "normal high
water"? Or as "flooded land"...

IF the ruling is for "normal high water" as in "High Tide" - it will not
stand very long, IF they have the money to fight it.

I think my definitation would be based on "could the land farmed"? How
often is the land dry vs flooded?

Glenn, I am glad you brought this to the groups attention.

Ken H

"BellSouth" wrote in message
...
You are correct Glenn, there was some confusion in the way the article was
written.... but from my reading, it "seemed" to say the point he was
ruling on was the normally "not flooded" land that folks did not have
access to when it's flooded. BUT in South LA, there are times it's really
hard to determine what is "ordinary high-water" because the land can flood
every spring.

Is land that "normally floods each season" considered as "normal high
water"? Or as "flooded land"...

IF the ruling is for "normal high water" as in "High Tide" - it will not
stand very long, IF they have the money to fight it.

I think my definitation would be based on "could the land farmed"? How
often is the land dry vs flooded?

Glenn, I am glad you brought this to the groups attention.

Ken H


I contacted Boat US about this. They are aware of it, and are concerned, and
are taking action. So I tend to think that we are not misreading or
misinterpreting the judge's ruling.

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
You better read this. Everyone here is about to be guilty of a criminal act
if we put out boats in the water!

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html



If this is fact.. you all had better run, not walk, to the nearest
Canadian Embassy and apply for citizenship. Act now...beat the crowds.

Don White wrote:
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
You better read this. Everyone here is about to be guilty of a criminal act
if we put out boats in the water!

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html



If this is fact.. you all had better run, not walk, to the nearest
Canadian Embassy and apply for citizenship. Act now...beat the crowds.

The province of New Brusnwick has a law which specifically permits
fishermen to use the bank of any river or stream in the province. It
was a reaction against the laws in the old country (Great Britain)
which kept the public off riverbanks flowing through private land,
mostly owned by the aristocracy.

I can't see this US jusdgement holding up against popular outrage.
They'll find some way out of the situation. eg pass a new law.

Don White wrote in news:mhBOg.20946$9u.234140
@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca:

If this is fact.. you all had better run, not walk, to the nearest
Canadian Embassy and apply for citizenship. Act now...beat the crowds.



Now, now, Don. You're just trying to expand the Canadian tax base to
reduce your taxes.....(c;



--
There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.