|
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 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 not gonna believe this one!
You are right. I don't believe it.
Don W. 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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
I googled up the case and some other documents. It looks like a much
bigger deal if you are a fisherman than a boater. It seems to involve access to the water that covers the intertidal zone when the tide is above low. I don't see how this could be an issue in this part of the world where access to the intertidal zone for fishing and navigation is already common law. There have been some attempts up this way by landowners to say that sunbathing and reading books are neither fishing nor navigation but no serious attempt to say that recreational boating is not navigation. If the common law in the river states is such that landowner's property extends to the low tide line, this could be a huge flap. -- Roger Long "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 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 not gonna believe this one!
"Don W" wrote
You are right. I don't believe it. Don W. Well, it ain't April Fools Day. This is a real Federal judge and he is dead serious. Get outside the "main shipping channel" of any navigable waters of the US and you are guilty of criminal trespass. -- 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 not gonna believe this one!
"Roger Long" wrote I googled up the case and some other documents. It looks like a much bigger deal if you are a fisherman than a boater. It seems to involve access to the water that covers the intertidal zone when the tide is above low. I don't see how this could be an issue in this part of the world where access to the intertidal zone for fishing and navigation is already common law. There have been some attempts up this way by landowners to say that sunbathing and reading books are neither fishing nor navigation but no serious attempt to say that recreational boating is not navigation. If the common law in the river states is such that landowner's property extends to the low tide line, this could be a huge flap. The problem is that the ruling limits access to only the "main shipping channel". Also Louisiana law grants public access to the whole river up to the normal high water mark. Common law grants access to the banks and portages. This ruling negates both. I don't think you can get away with thinking you can't worry about it because it doesn't effect me because in all probability it will soon. I don't mean to adopt the NRA's "don't give an inch" philosophy but this is way more than an inch. Theoretically based on this ruling a shore side property owner could go to Federal court and win a judgment voiding all the mooring permits in front of his property out to the main channel. -- 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 not gonna believe this one!
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote
I don't think you can get away with thinking you can't worry about it because it doesn't effect me because in all probability it will soon. I don't mean to adopt the NRA's "don't give an inch" philosophy but this is way more than an inch. Theoretically based on this ruling a shore side property owner could go to Federal court and win a judgment voiding all the mooring permits in front of his property out to the main channel. I don't see that "main channel" here means the buoyed shipping channel. but just the part of the river that is wet 24 hours a day. There aren't likely to be any moorings outside of that. Unless I'm misreading something, this applies to the areas shown in dark green on the chart. This is still pretty serious and worth a big fight. I'll be surprised if it stands up though. It's sort of like saying any property owner can restrict aircraft flights over their property. There's a group in MA trying that but I don't think it's going to sick. -- Roger Long |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"Mike Harris" wrote in message . .. "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 In the meantime, I think it would be a very good idea for those of us who may be affected by this draconian ruling to make as much noise about it as possible. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 . .. "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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
Well,
You better believe it.... Here in Michigan we are stil fighting to get to back the essential right to have crew change headsails underway. It seems the "No Bow Riding" statute was so badly written as to prohibit tending headsails or anchoring. I used to own one and a half acres of Lake Erie bottom. The land's title specifically stated that though I had title to the property that was below the mean high water level as established (it was specific), I could not impede navigation or the basic riperian rights on said waters. Here on the lakes most titles are like this. Matt Colie 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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 Peering into my crystal ball, I see a major slap up aside the head from an appeals court judge in Judge James' near future... |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:X1AOg.45465$ok5.27970@dukeread01: Theoretically based on this ruling a shore side property owner could go to Federal court and win a judgment voiding all the mooring permits in front of his property out to the main channel. Ah, we now see the root of the problem....control. You cannot moor a boat anywhere around Hilton Head Island, already, long before this ruling. SC has a law the millionaires passed saying that any waterfront fiefdom controlled "one mile to seaward" from the shore of their fiefdom. So, all they needed then was to write a city ordinance banning boating, which, effectively is what they've done. The ordinance says you can pass by his mansion, as long as you don't stop and spoil his personal view..... One waterfront land owner said she didn't want to look out her waterfront and see that "floating trailer park" (marina) next door. Looks like they may be able to get rid of them, too! -- There's amazing intelligence in the Universe. You can tell because none of them ever called Earth. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
Larry wrote:
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; Yeah...forgot to mention. Only those who can afford our taxes need apply. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
Don White wrote in news:diGOg.21070$9u.236584
@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca: Yeah...forgot to mention. Only those who can afford our taxes need apply. Yeah, but we get free doctor visits....eventually.....right?? -- There's amazing intelligence in the Universe. You can tell because none of them ever called Earth. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
Larry wrote:
Don White wrote in news:diGOg.21070$9u.236584 @ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca: Yeah...forgot to mention. Only those who can afford our taxes need apply. Yeah, but we get free doctor visits....eventually.....right?? Sure do... if you can find a family doctor who doesn't feel overburdened by his practice and will accept new patients. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"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 not gonna believe this one!
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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"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. |
You are not gonna believe this one!
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 . .. "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 |
You are not gonna believe this one!
"Glenn Ashmore" writes:
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 "US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters" Well, I don't live in the US so "Everyone" is a bit of an exageration. -- Martin Schöön "Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back" Piet Hein |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com