Clinton Appointed Judge Declares Boating Illegal

“http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20060814154923ibinews.html

Clinton Appointed US Federal Judge Declares Boating Illegal In All US Navigable Waters

By IBI Magazine

In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.

In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.

"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April fools joke, it is very serious," said Phil Keeter, MRAA president, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the US law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, and fishing tournaments to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."

Last month, James rejected the findings of the Magistrate judge who found earlier that the American public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish, and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi river up to the normal high water line of the river. Judge James Kirk relied on the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized the public navigational rights "…entitles the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."

"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA to fight this onerous ruling," said Glen Mazzella, MRAA chairman, in the statement.


(14 September 2006)”

“Kewl! That ought to put some cheap boats on the market! Then when the ruling gets overturned ...”

“That's weird. When you go to the link SSLOL posted, the headline reads nothing like the one he posted. It's almost like maybe some creative editing went into it or something.

That's a grrrrrreat idea!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/15/dentist.murders.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Bush supporter dentist admits killing wife, girlfriend 14 years apart

LAWRENCEVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- A dentist pleaded guilty Friday to killing his wife in 2004 and a girlfriend in dental school 14 years earlier. He also pleaded temporary insanity for voting for George W. Bush in 2004.

Barton Corbin, 42, was immediately ordered to serve two life sentences in prison for the murders, but would eventually be eligible for parole.

Corbin entered the pleas to two counts of malice murder after four days of jury selection for his trial in the murder of his wife, Jennifer Corbin.

He had been scheduled to stand trial later for the 1990 murder of Dorothy "Dolly" Hearn in Augusta, Georgia, where both Barton Corbin and Hearn were dental school students at the time.

Hearn's death had been ruled a suicide but her case was reopened soon after Jennifer Corbin was found dead in the couple's Georgia home in 2004. Both Hearn and Corbin died of a single gunshot wound to the head and their bodies were found with the gun lying nearby. Both were initially ruled suicides.”

“Kleetn, are you denying Clinton didn't appoint this guy?
Why do you hate boaters so much?”

“Hopefully this ruling will get...
wait for it
overturned.”

“LOL

yeah, i don't think this ruling will "hold much water"”

“SSLOL, are you denying you made up your own headline?
Why do you hate America so much?”

“Now if I had edited the content as kleetn did, that would be a problem.
Headlines are fair game as long as they are true.

Stupid kleetn.

Seems that all the really stupid rulings come from Clinton appointees.”

“Typical silly right wing nut case, thinking liberals are all stupid!”

“So you are denying you made up your own headline?

Oh, and thanks for taking the high road!”

“Ohio Rep. Ney pleads guilty to false statements
Conspiracy to commit fraud also among charges
The Associated Press


Updated: 11:04 a.m. ET Sept 15, 2006
WASHINGTON - Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, pleaded guilty Friday to making false statements and conspiracy to commit fraud and violating post-employment restrictions for former congressional aides.

Ney abandonded months of defiant denials to admit guilt in the congressional corruption probe spawned by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Ney becomes the first lawmaker to admit wrongdoing in the election-year investigation.

Change of direction
Ney had consistently denied any wrongdoing in the investigation, an insistence that he maintained even after his former chief of staff pleaded guilty in May. The aide, Neil Volz, confessed to conspiring to corrupt the congressman and others with trips and other aid. Volz became a business partner of Abramoff after leaving the congressional payroll.

Ney had a unique power perch in the House when the year dawned, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the internal workings of the 435-member House. Speaker Dennis Hastert pressured Ney into surrendering his committee chairmanship earlier this year as concern rippled through the GOP ranks about the Abramoff scandal.

Still, as recently as early summer, Ney said he intended to seek re-election in the sprawling, rural district in eastern Ohio he has represented since 1994. He changed his mind at the prodding of party leaders who feared the loss of his seat in November if he remained on the ballot.


Scandal has produced other confessions
While Ney would become the first member of Congress to plead guilty in the probe, a second lawmaker, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., is at the center of a separate investigation involving alleged bribery. He has not been charged and denies all wrongdoing.

In addition to Abramoff and Volz, the scandal has produced guilty pleas by two former congressional aides to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay resigned from Congress earlier in the year. He has not been charged in the federal investigation, but is under indictment on state charges in Texas in a different case. He denied all wrongdoing.

Prosecutors also won a conviction in the Abramoff case against former White House official David Safavian, formerly the Bush administration's top procurement official.

At Safavian's recent trial, prosecutors introduced a photograph of Ney and Abramoff standing next to a private jet that whisked them and other members to a golf outing in Scotland. Also in the photo were two of Ney's aides who went on the weeklong Abramoff-organized junket.

String of alleged favors
When Volz pleaded guilty in May, he listed 16 actions he said his old boss had taken on behalf of Abramoff's clients from January 2000 through April 2004. During that period, Abramoff and his lobbying team showered Ney with campaign donations, trips, meals at Abramoff's restaurant and tickets to sporting events and concerts.

In 2000, Ney read remarks into the Congressional Record helpful to Abramoff, who was trying to acquire a Florida casino cruise-ship company.

In 2002, Abramoff and Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide who has pleaded guilty in the scandal, promised an Indian tribe that Ney would champion legislation to reopen a tribal casino. When evidence surfaced that Abramoff had bilked the Indian tribe, Ney said, "How did I know what they were charging their clients?"

Ney said he supported the provision to help the Tigua Indian tribe of Texas reopen its casino after Abramoff told him that Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., supported the effort, which Dodd said he had no knowledge of. Ney said the Scotland golf trip had nothing to do with the tribal legislation.

Ney also met with Abramoff about a wireless contract for House office buildings, then awarded the contract to the company the lobbyist represented. The congressman said the award was based on merit through open competition.

Ney said he had been duped into helping Abramoff on both the tribal casino and the Florida deal, and that he was duped again about who paid for the Scotland trip. Abramoff denied misleading Ney.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.”

“Did I get the hang of it Stovie???”

“You're lookin' good, Geo!”

“Seems that all the really stupid rulings come from Clinton appointees.

StoveStomper
10:46:32 AM
9/15/06


Excellent point. So you must love these jurists, eh?

• Harry Blackmun, author of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and foe of the death penalty, who was nominated by President Nixon.
• Justice John Paul Stevens, whom most conservatives see as a "reliable liberal vote" on most issues, and nominated by President Ford.
• Sandra Day O'Connor, who was nominated by Mr. Reagan and ruled in favor of upholding both racial preferences in college admissions and the right to abortion created by the Roe v. Wade decision.
• Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, another Reagan appointee, who authored the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that created a right to sodomy.
• Justice David H. Souter, nominated by President George Bush, who joined in decisions upholding racial preferences and abortion rights, and voted against ending the repeated recounts of the 2000 Florida presidential ballots.”

“Easy Kleety, you'll choke the poor guy to death that way.”

“So, only the center people like myself care about the little people's access to our waterways.
The far lefties like Geo, kleetn approve of this Judge's ruling just because it came from a Clinton appointee.”

“So you don't want to talk about Ney or those GOP-appointed justices? That seems strange.”

“So, you silly people don't want to talk about the thread subject.
Looks like you approve of this judge's ruling just because he's a Dem appointed by Clinton.
[VBG]”

“No, illiterate one, as I indicated, I just want to buy a cheap boat. That's a Republican trait, I do believe.”

“No, illiterate one - Geo

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It must really piss Geo off that an
'illiterate' Southern boy with a BSEE makes at least twice what an Editor does.

I would think anyone that makes their living as an Editor would be able to spell.
Remember your 'nail' comment yesterday, Geo?
[VBG]”

““So, only the center people like myself care about the little people's access to our waterways.
The far lefties like Geo, kleetn approve of this Judge's ruling just because it came from a Clinton appointee.”
StoveStomper
1:39:09 PM
9/15/06

Yeah, sell crazy somewhere else!!”

“Then why all the offtopic posts, MarkO?”

“Center of what?

This is a relatively meaningless issue and you are trying to make something out of it.

Why are you trying to stir up schit so often?

Aren't you a real important guy with real important work to do?”

“Water access is a relatively meaningless issue???
MarkO, you are being silly again.”

“If SSLOL is center, Attila the Hun must be a gawddamn silly libbie.”

“Actually, I find the ruling to be quite conservative, not liberal. Note how it upholds private property rights and interests over what had traditionally been considered navigable waterways held in the public trust. It takes a very conservative view of what is navigable- a river can be a navigable waterway, but not the shallow areas? Traditionally, if a river is deemed navigable, all of it is, even shallow areas (at least here in PA).”

“NY too, in fact it's considered navigable if it's deep enough that a person in a canoe or kayak can move through it without getting out of the boat a certain percentage of the year. Carry routes around rapids are also included as part of the navigable corridor.

The only real exception to that rule is where a lake and pond is completely surrounded by private land like Upper and Lower Ausable Lakes.
last edited: 9/15/06 2:40:30 PM”

“Traditionally, if a river is deemed navigable, all of it is, even shallow areas (at least here in PA).”- jm

That's why this ruling is so wrong.
Complete reversal of current water access rights law.

Clinton appointees always seem to make the wrong judgements.”

“Which bugs you the most Stovey, the ruling, or the fact that the judge was appointed by Ol’ Billy boy.”

“The ruling, zac.
But I do get the satisfaction of knowing that a stupid ruling like this came from a Clinton appointee.”

“Marko, I believe the proper quote is:

“Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City sailor wanna hump-hump bar or is this getaway day, and your last shot at his whiskey. Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.””

“Ahhhhh Klinton

Get back!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Silly libbies”

“Did the cowardly troll say something?”

“I'm sure that everyone's going to vote for Republicans now.

I mean, the hundreds of deaths per day in Iraq is a small issue compared to kayak access rights.

I think the judge was just upset that Air America radio went bankrupt. You can't blame him, really. Al Franken is really funny.”

“SS - it's probably crash having withdrawals from his self-imposed exile”

“Al Franken is really funny.

have you heard the show? maybe you were being facitious”

“You think?”

“just checking - can't be too sure these days you know ... ;)”

“BTW, how many people died in Iraq today?

And what is Bush doing about it?”

“he's allowing it to happen there so you don't experience it here

thanks for reminding me why I like Bush”

“Glad we got that sorted out.

Sleep well, moonglo!”

“SS - it's probably crash having withdrawals from his self-imposed exile”
moonglo
8:03:41 PM
9/15/06

I don't know, moon.
Crash told me it was not him so I'll take him at his word, for now. ;-)
Whoever it is I noticed before I put it on ignore, it was not very smart, so it could be any number of the nastyer libbies.
MarkO is usually upfront with his nastyness. He has suggested I kill myself and also expressed pleasure that my house got torn up by Katrina.
BB comes and goes with his nastyness. He and violin also expressed joy with my Katrina loses.
Very well could be Geo, Q, or kleetn but I don't know.

Don't care. Cowardly trolls don't bother me.
last edited: 9/15/06 8:22:22 PM”

“Who appointed the judge is moot. After receiving a lifetime appointment, people have shown a disturbing tendency to rule in totally different ways than expected. That having been said:

I don't get it. I agree that the ruling sucks. It is a conservative ruling. Personal rights over previously public throughways? That's damn near libertarian! (And I should know; that's what my voting card says.) The ironic thing is, I agree with SS, this is absolute Bull#&%!$ And so very, very wrong. I "own" part of a state highway in colorado. But I'll bet that if I put up a Toll Booth, I'd find my pasty white fanny in jail. A right of way exists to provide a path to interstate commerce, which is the only reason a federal judge should be involved in the first place. And since most kayakers aren't carrying a whole lot of cargo, (At 220 lbs. I can guarantee I'm not!), the federal government has no right to stick their nose in the first place.

Wow, that was weird. I agree with Stove Stomper. Where did you say you were from?”

“A boat isn't needed if a Republican is able to walk on water.”

“Stovestomper....duh-duh-da-duhhhhhh”

“this is not an argument, just thinking outloud here, welcoming input ... but to continue the "is this a liberal or conservative ruling" thing -

normally I'd agree this is a conservative ruling, and I do think it leans that way somewhat, but I do think we're in a gray area here. conservatives tend to put personal property interests above that of state, but not necessarily of country (depending on the situation). for example, normally a conservative would not favor the state telling them they have to give up their house for a ballpark. but, would conservatives be for the federal gov't taking over their home in time of war on the homeland? probably. would a conservative be for the fed gov't forcing the family to give up their children to fight? yes - the liberal, not so much. (again, gray areas and simplifying being used)

a major waterway like the mississippi river is more of a national resource than a state or local resource. as a conservative, i'd be all for protecting it as a national "highway" so to speak. if I purchased a property that engulfs it, I'd assume the river wasn't mine, but the countries.

I'm not suggesting it's a liberal ruling, but to say it's a conservative ruling is questionable too. This might be one of those rare instances where it goes beyond conservative and liberal and is about national heritage or national interests.”

“I'd like to see some other analysis of what the ruling meant.

Of course, you've also got to remember that Judges don't rule on what the law should be - they rule on what it is. If it says what this article says the judge said it is then we should change the laws isntead of whining about the judge.

After all, liberal. conservative or Stove Stomper, we are all in the same boat here.”

“I think this guy is just one fool in a long line of fools who have make a contribution to water access laws.

In Michigan, the test of navigability is the log float test. If you can float a log down a river and there is a public access and a court agrees, then the water is navigable.

But I would be surprised if this is some kind of univeral decision. First, it probably just applies to that particular District.

There are also a myriad of laws on this. In Michigan, for instance, the Great Lakes bottomlands were declared public up to the high water mark by the Northwest Ordinance. This means that even the Constitution of the state of Michigan cannot revoke that public access.

I would be curious if the federal government has any legal right to limit that kind of access.”

“I too think it's a poor ruling, but it's tiresome and childish to use one judge's poor ruling to bash the person who appointed him, and paint others with a broad brush.

Ironically, it was a conservative ruling, not a liberal one. I guess Clinton should be blamed for appointing a conservative.

And before we bash presidents and how the judges they pick rule years later, maybe we all should re-acquaint ourselves with the concept of an independent judiciary.”

“but it's tiresome and childish to use one judge's poor ruling to bash the person who appointed him ... I guess Clinton should be blamed for appointing a conservative.

hmmm ...”