"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Holy Smoke!!!

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

Another rogue judge appointed for life.

I did a Google on U.S. District Judge Robert G. James, Federal Judge Robert
G. James or Judge Robert G. James and I come up empty.

Hoax?

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Holy Smoke!!!

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

Another rogue judge appointed for life.

I did a Google on U.S. District Judge Robert G. James, Federal Judge
Robert G. James or Judge Robert G. James and I come up empty.

Hoax?

Nope.

James, Robert Gillespie
Born 1946 in Ruston, LA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1998, to a seat vacated by
John M. Shaw; Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 1998, and received
commission on August 3, 1998.

Education:
Louisiana Tech University, B.A., 1968

Louisiana State University Law School, J.D., 1971

Professional Career:
Private practice, Ruston, Louisiana, 1971-1998
Business law instructor, Louisiana Tech University, 1992-1998
Judge, Ruston City Court, Louisiana, 1985-1998


Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

The case involves property rights and he went into the whole thing
about riparian property rights and it got confusing for a non lawyer
like myself.


The fishermen need to take this up to a higher judge or the Supreme Court.
There was a case like that here, although it involved a trout stream whose
banks were owned or leased (don't remember) by Trout Unlimited. TU didn't
want any non-snobs using "their water". They got VERY badly spanked in
court.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:35:06 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
Holy Smoke!!!

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

Another rogue judge appointed for life.

I did a Google on U.S. District Judge Robert G. James, Federal Judge Robert
G. James or Judge Robert G. James and I come up empty.

Hoax?

Nope - he's real.

I just received an email from a friend who is an attorney and is also
a recreational fisherman.

Apparently, this decision affects hunting and fishing only - it does
not affect normal recreational boating.

The case involves property rights and he went into the whole thing
about riparian property rights and it got confusing for a non lawyer
like myself.

Here are some excerpts from the RFA on the case.

"In this case, the local Sheriff is arresting fishermen while they
fish the edges and banks of the Mississippi River even while the water
is directly connected to the Mississippi River, and even when the
water is ten or twenty or thirty feet deep. The Sheriff will arrest
fishermen unless they stay in the River on areas that are always
covered by water at normal low water. The Sheriff's arrests are made
at the request of local landowners who are intent on claiming the
fishing waters of America's navigable Rivers as their exclusive
domain."

"If he fishermen on the Mississippi River can be pushed to the center
of the main channel, then America's fishermen on all the other
navigable rivers are destined for the same threatening treatment. If
the Sheriff wins this case, recreational fishing on public waters is a
thing of the past."

"This case has been ongoing for ten (10) years and is the culmination
of the public access fight by fishermen to access public waters to
fish. The Plaintiffs have asserted that navigable waters are useable
across the entire surface of the navigable waterway for boating and
fishing. The riparian owners assert that public boating and fishing is
limited to the main channel. "

Which is interesting because federal law only allows private property
rights only to the mean high water mark. Basically, this judge is
rewriting the law to make the new boundary the mean low water mark.

I wonder if the judge owns any river front property?

This ruling should be applauded by land owners who feel that private
property rights should supercede public access.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 18:39:05 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

This ruling should be applauded by land owners who feel that private
property rights should supercede public access.

I'm sure it will be, but it's an odd ruling in that there already was
an established Federal guide which this judge has just junked.

There is potential here for some problematic issues like access to
beach front for example.

My only experience with the beach front idea comes from reading endless
newspaper articles about it when I lived on the South Fork of L.I. IIRC, the
law was so vague that it was eventually rewritten to say "forget riparian
rights - the beach is not yours no matter how many millions you paid for the
house". So, you can walk from Shinnecock all the way to Montauk without
being accosted.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 18:39:05 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

This ruling should be applauded by land owners who feel that private
property rights should supercede public access.

I'm sure it will be, but it's an odd ruling in that there already was
an established Federal guide which this judge has just junked.

There is potential here for some problematic issues like access to
beach front for example.

My only experience with the beach front idea comes from reading endless
newspaper articles about it when I lived on the South Fork of L.I.
IIRC, the law was so vague that it was eventually rewritten to say
"forget riparian rights - the beach is not yours no matter how many
millions you paid for the house". So, you can walk from Shinnecock all
the way to Montauk without being accosted.
In minnesota, the public water goes to the "ordinary high water mark". I
thought these sorts of things were state issues.

"NOYB" wrote in message news:29HOg.8128$v%

This will be resolved at the SC.

Look at this guy's c.v.---

Born in Ruston, LA (pop. about 25000, incl 6500 LTU students)
[presumably grew up in Ruston, LA]
Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 1968
......then ventured far afield....... 180 miles to Baton Rouge
Louisiana State University Law School, J.D., 1971
........then headed right back home to...
Private practice, Ruston, Louisiana, 1971-1998
Business law instructor, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 1992-1998
Judge, Ruston City Court, Ruston, LA, 1985-1998
Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana 1998--
......serving as District Judge in the Monroe Division,
about 30 miles from -- Ruston, LA

Apart from his time at LSU Law, has this guy ever been more than 50 miles
from home?

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:10:47 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 18:39:05 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

This ruling should be applauded by land owners who feel that private
property rights should supercede public access.

I'm sure it will be, but it's an odd ruling in that there already was
an established Federal guide which this judge has just junked.

There is potential here for some problematic issues like access to
beach front for example.

My only experience with the beach front idea comes from reading endless
newspaper articles about it when I lived on the South Fork of L.I.
IIRC, the law was so vague that it was eventually rewritten to say
"forget riparian rights - the beach is not yours no matter how many
millions you paid for the house". So, you can walk from Shinnecock all
the way to Montauk without being accosted.

In minnesota, the public water goes to the "ordinary high water mark". I
thought these sorts of things were state issues.

They were - until now. Ordinary is mean and that is pretty much the
Federal standard.

Now, at least for LA, it's precedent for low water mark.

Mississippi has always been federal, not state law. Is part of the
agreements of statehood.