The communistic manifesto of America; AGENDA 21

WE WILL WIN BACK WHAT HAS BEEN STOLEN FROM THEE! HEED THESE WORDS:
The truth shall set us free as a people and a nation again! All to whom worship our Stars & Stripes,it is bipartisan by nature, as Americans all are called upon to rid this nation of the creeping evil at our back door. Agenda 21 and to all that follow in its footsteps, in a running down of our beloved America, I say NO! You will not trample on our Bill of Rights, Constitution, ways to which we work and play. Dictation of our fisheries to fishing with our children will not be taken away; President or not; you will not trample on my rights as you already have the American People. Why do you lie? Has agenda 21 consumed your soul too?

Help us in our fight for the right to fish and live free in the land we call the United States of America. The media is afraid of it so much they refuse to talk about it and maybe it will just go away? Follow me as our leadership grows in the colors of Red, White and Blue.

Americans and the American news media are all but ignoring the shenanigans by those who worship at the altar of the United Nations. The big story these days is the conflict between the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama over the proposed debt ceiling increase, cuts in spending and the Democrat Party's favorite activity: Raising taxes on the rich. The real problem, is with the media's coverage of this United Nations labyrinth known as Agenda 21. Created in 1992 and implemented in incremental actions by the U.N. and its supporters in the U.S., E.U., and other countries whose populations are eager to benefit from the work of others especially those enjoying success in the United States.

Congress never approved the implementation of Agenda 21 programs in education, economics, the environment and other areas and though other presidents have recognized this scurvy to a scorched earth policy, President Obama, at the end of the Lame Duck session of Congress in January, as all were going home, did the Senates job for them in ratifying the LOST Convention or as we know it Agenda 21 of the Land of the Sea Treaty!

Agenda 21's, International Council of Local Environmental Initiative, ICLEI, have made deals with local governments numbering upwards of 600 cities, towns across the USA now in a step that ignores the Constitution in that these cities have made a pact with the devil, so to speak, as cities to States may make no concessions with foreign governments what so ever. The Feds have ignored it too and they are found in contempt of the law of our land. Proponents of Agenda 21 are not limited too but these are the big boys at bat: billionaire George Soros has provided millions of dollars to ICLEI. Former Obama czar Van Jones' Green for All and the Tides Foundations' Apollo Alliance are also reportedly ICLEI contributors.

The truth is, Agenda 21 promotes European socialism that by its nature will infringe upon our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person's eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities. Phrases like GreenPrint, Sustainability, sustainable growth, sustainable environments and such that look to sound good until you look inside the box! As a radical environmental agenda, the U.N. wishes to change consumption patterns, including ownership of property and automobiles all the while, successfully promoting social justice. In the United States, the Agenda 21 National Coordinating Body is the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).

The U.S. Constitution requires that consensus on public policy be hammered out in public by elected officials, not by 28 appointed individuals, carefully selected because of their known support of the principles expressed in Agenda 21. This UN description of the PCSD is found in a section of the report entitled "Integrated Decision-making," also known as the "consensus" process. Just look at the Executive Orders Obama has passed without Congressional consent! Yet nobody talks about it, with the exception of I. As I stand here before you today and say NO TO AGENDA 21! The progressives laid the foundation for Agenda 21 in the 1960s when it became unlawful to pray in government schools. Now, as of this week, because it may offend the Hispanics of our country, these same progressives are trying to ban the US Flag from flying in schools to government buildings. If they do not like my stars and stripes to which my great, great, great uncle wrote “The Star Spangled Banner” they can leave!

Just as they crept into our schools, they used Magnuson-Stevens in its loop-holes in the upper Northwest in planning catch shares to sector separation on the salmon. Little by little, like the camel in A sop's fables, once the nose was in the tent, he took over the whole tent. I think it is time to cook the Camel! ...What do you think??? Sustainable Development in School Curriculum" is one of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21. This objective has been achieved in 63% of the participating nations, and in process in another 17%.

Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, "the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programs as Goals 2000 and School to Work. Do you know that when our country is at its knees with the debt and default hanging overhead, President Obama recently offered 500 million dollars to any school to whom kicked out the ABC's and implemented Environmental Education as an alternative to regular studies K-12; with an Environmental Literacy test administered at the end of your schooling. Regardless of your grades, pass the Environment test and collect your reward of a H.S. Diploma? Part of the Environmental studies is on Marine Spatial Planning, Sector Separation and Catch Shares. Inquiring minds want to know! "EDF is now pulling all forces and funding to target the Gulf of Mexico as their model for catch shares. They view the Gulf as the prize and will stop at nothing to eliminate fishing and jobs."If all are taught this, a brain washing occurs to which one would no not the difference between freedom and the communistic manifesto of the fisheries.


Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite, the councils, who believe they know best how people ought to live, fish and travel, therefore they should be allowed to tell people how it is, as indoctrinated in LOST, Agenda 21.




USA USA

A True Oxymoron; Other Mandatory Discretionary Funds: NOAA Files

TOTAL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR NOAA:
$109,015,000.00 That is 190 million, 15 thousand Dollars of Your Money spent on items not really needed; that is why it is called, Discretionary Funds! I want to run for a Political Office. I am a Exploratory Candidate for the US Senate Florida. I Fish, I Vote. I CAN! We, together can put a stop to this out of control spending. Help me, help you put an end to unnecessary spending of your hard earned dollars. Please support my efforts in running as an Exploratory candidate and together we can stop this madness...

Editor's Note: "How, I ask, can anything be of a "Discretionary" act and yet considered Mandatory? Discretionary is an adjective, meaning:

1. having or using the ability to act or decide according to your own discretion or judgment; The commission has discretionary power to award extra funds; discretionary funds; discretionary income; discretionary; Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0; discretionary;
2. not earmarked; available for use as needed. Aah? and

Mandatory as an adjective means to:

1. Be required by rule; in most schools physical education are compulsory; attendance is mandatory; required reading; mandatory; but as a noun

1. the recipient of a mandate
2. a territory surrendered by Turkey or Germany after World War I and put under the tutelage of some other European power until they are able to stand by themselves.

Two words of total opposite meaning, I'm right, it is a Oxymoron; leave it to NOAA to come up with this ignorant statement and they wonder why they cannot get their act together in shutting down fishing as we know it today; the leasing to private foundations and fleets in owning what is not theirs to own in the first place, our oceans to sea shores. Another Oxymoron, at its best! I think just a bunch of Greedy Moron's about sums it up. Also, no editing needed in this budget proposal; all misspellings to grammar at its best, is courtesy of Dr. Jane and her staff, up there at NOAA, in raping you of badly needed dollars we could be using in mending the US Budget to helping out the homeless!"

The Discretionary Social Fund and Money Management (DWP Research Report)



COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUND
The Coastal Zone Management Fund (CZMF) was established under the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508). The CZMF consists
of loan repayments from the former Coastal Energy Impact Program.
Loans under this program were made prior to 1992, but balances were not
transferred to the General Fund in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (FCRA), even though the account effectively serves as a liquidating
account. To resolve this inconsistency, the Budget proposes to cancel all
balances in the Coastal Zone Management Fund, make future payments to
the Fund subject to FCRA, and eliminate the annual transfer from this account
to the Operations, Research, and Facilities account.

COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE FUND
Congress authorized the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) in 2001
to assist states in mitigating the impacts from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
oil and gas production. Congress appropriated $150,000,000 in FY 2001
to seven coastal states: Alaska, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida, to implement this program. Funds were expended
according to Coastal Impact Assistance Plans developed by the states.
NOAA was charged with implementing this program at the federal level. FY
2001 was the only year NOAA received an appropriation for these activities;
however, NOAA continues to receive de-obligations from this grant program,
which are deposited in this account.

FISHERMEN’S CONTINGENCY FUND
The Fishermen’s Contingency Fund (FCF) program minimizes financial
losses of the fishing industry caused by competing uses of the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) and provides for timely resolution of claims by vessel
owners. The FCF is authorized under Section 402 of Title IV of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978. NOAA compensates U.S.
commercial fishermen for damage or loss of fishing gear, vessels, and resulting
economic loss caused by obstructions related to oil and gas exploration,
development, and production in any area of the Outer Continental Shelf. The
funds used to provide this compensation are derived from fees collected by
the Secretary of the Interior from the holders of leases, exploration permits,
easements, or rights-of-way in areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. The
FCF account is funded solely through user fees. Disbursements can be
made only to the extent authorized in appropriation acts. In FY 2012 NMFS
requests budget authority of $350,000 for the payment of claims filed by
fisherman. These funds should be sufficient to cover the anticipated amount
of claims for FY 2012.

FOREIGN FISHING OBSERVER FUND
The Foreign Fishing Observer Fund (FFOF) is financed through fees collected from owners and operators
of foreign fishing vessels fishing within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States (such
fishing requires a permit issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act). This includes longline vessels fishing in the Atlantic billfish and shark fishery and other foreign vessels
fishing in the EEZ. The fund is used by NOAA to pay salaries, administrative costs, data editing and
entry costs, and other costs incurred in placing observers aboard foreign fishing vessels. The observer
program is conducted primarily through contracts with the private sector. NOAA/NMFS places these
observers aboard foreign fishing vessels to monitor compliance with U.S. fishery laws and to collect fishery
management data. Amounts available in the fund can be disbursed only to the extent and in amounts
provided in appropriation acts. In FY 1985, Congress approved the establishment of a supplemental
observer program. The program provided that foreign vessels without federally-funded observers are
required to obtain the services of private contractors certified by the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA
does not anticipate foreign fishing in the U.S. EEZ requiring funds from this account. In FY 2012, NOAA
requests that $350,000 of the unobligated balance available be rescinded.

FISHERIES FINANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT
The Fisheries Finance Program (FFP) Account is a national loan program that makes long-term fixed-rate
financing available to U.S. citizens who otherwise qualify for financing or refinancing of the construction,
reconstruction, reconditioning, and, in some cases, the purchasing of fishing vessels, shoreside processing,
aquaculture, and mariculture facilities, and the purchase of individual fishing quota (IFQ). The FFP
operates under the authority of Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended (46 USC 53701);
Section 303(a) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and, from
time to time FFP-specific legislation. NMFS requests no increase for the FFP because these loans have
a negative subsidy rate and no appropriated funds are required. However, specific loan ceilings for each
type of loan authority within the FFP must be included in appropriation language or other bill language
regardless of the need for cash appropriations. The FY 2012 budget proposal requests loan authority of
$24 million for IFQ loans and $59 million for FFP traditional loans as authorized by the Merchant Marine
Act. Three benefits will result from this action. First, the IFQ loan program is part of the Northwest Halibut
and Sablefish and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab limited entry fisheries management program
that continues to stabilize these fisheries. This will also support the implementation of the crab IFQ loan
required by the management plan approved by the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Second,
FFP traditional lending is harvesting-capacity-neutral and supports qualified established U.S. seafood
companies operating in a sustainable fisheries environment. Last, FFP lending to marine aquaculture facilities
contributes to the development of a promising avenue of seafood production and greater economic
sustainability from U.S. ocean resources.


PROMOTE AND DEVELOP FISHERIES PRODUCTS
The American Fisheries Promotion Act (AFPA) of 1980 amended the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Act to
authorize a grants program for fisheries research and development projects to be carried out with S-K
funds. S-K funds are derived from a mandatory transfer from the Department of Agriculture to NOAA
from duties on imported fisheries products. An amount equal to 30% of these duties is made available to
NOAA and, subject to appropriation, is available to carry out the purposes of the AFPA. The S-K grants
program has provided substantial assistance to address impediments to the management, development,
and utilization of the Nation’s living marine resources. Each year a Federal Register notice is published announcing the program. The annual notice outlines priority areas, such as research on reduction/elimination of bycatch and aquaculture. The remainder of the S-K funds, which are transferred as discretionary funds, are used to offset the appropriation requirements of the Operations, Research, and Facilities account.

PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND
The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) was established by Congress in FY 2000 to address
the listings of Pacific salmon and steelhead populations under the ESA and the impacts of the Pacific
Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and Canada. Under the PCSRF, NMFS manages a
program to provide funding to the states and tribes of the Pacific Coast region (Washington, Oregon, California,
Idaho, Nevada, and Alaska) to implement projects that restore and protect salmonid populations
and their habitats. Through FY 2010, over $880 million has been provided to nearly 9 thousand projects
throughout the region that have made important contributions to improve that status of ESA-listed salmonids,
preventing extinctions, and helping to protect currently healthy populations. In addition to the PCSRF
federal funds, states provide significant matching funds through their grant allocation processes. Furthermore,
the federal and state matching funds are supplemented by private and local contributions at
the project level, including additional funding, volunteer time, and other in-kind donations. The FY 2012
President’s Request includes $65,000,000 for this account.

MARINE MAMMAL UNUSUAL MORTALITY EVENT FUND
An unusual mortality event (UME) is defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as “a stranding that
is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal population; and demands immediate
response.” In recent years, increased efforts to examine carcasses and live stranded animals have improved
the knowledge of mortality rates and causes, allowing a better understanding of population threats
and stressors and the ability to determine when a situation is “unusual.” Understanding and investigating
marine mammal UMEs is important because they can serve as indicators of ocean health, giving insight
into larger environmental issues which may also have implications for human health and welfare.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Section 405 (16 USC 1421d) establishes the Marine Mammal Unusual
Mortality Event Fund. The fund: “shall be available only for use by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior to compensate persons for special costs incurred in acting in
accordance with the contingency plan issued under section 1421c(b) of this title or under the direction of
an onsite coordinator for an unusual mortality event; for reimbursing any stranding network participant for
costs incurred in preparing and transporting tissues collected with respect to an unusual mortality event
for the Tissue Bank; and for care and maintenance of marine mammal seized under section 1374(c)(2)(D).”
According to the MMPA, deposits can be made into the fund by the following: “amounts appropriated
to the fund; other amounts appropriated to the Secretary with respect to unusual mortality events; and
amounts received by the United States in the form of gifts, devises, and bequests under subsection (d) of
this section.”

MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND
The FY 2003 Department of Defense Authorization Act requires all uniformed services, including NOAA, to
participate in an accrual fund for Medicare-eligible retirees. Payments into this accrual fund will cover the
future health care benefits of present, active-duty NOAA officers and their dependents and annuitants.

Budget Trends FY 2006-2012
Other Discretionary Funds (BA)
*****Other Discretionary Funds
Fisherman’s Contingency Fund $350,000
Foreign Fishing Observer Fund $350,000
Promote and Develop American Fisheries $66,200,000
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund $65,000,000
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund $1,936,000
Total Discretionary Funds from your TAXES= 13,860,000 Dollars!

OTHER DISCRETIONARY REIMBRUSABLE FUNDS

SANCTUARIES ENFORCEMENT ASSET FORFEITURE FUND

Sanctuaries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund receives proceeds from civil
penalties and forfeiture claims against responsible parties, as determined
through court settlements or agreements, for violations of NOAA sanctuary
regulations. Penalties received are held in sanctuary site-specific accounts
from year to year as the funds are spent on resource protection within the
sanctuary site where the penalty or forfeiture occurred. Funds are expended
for resource protection purposes which may include all aspects of law enforcement
(from equipment to labor), community oriented policing programs,
and other resource protection and management measures such as the installation
of mooring buoys or restoration of injured resources.

FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT ASSET FORFEITURE FUND

Section 311(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to pay certain enforcement-related expenses from fines, penalties and
forfeiture proceeds received for violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
or of any other marine resource law enforced by the Secretary. Pursuant
to this authority, the NOAA has established a Civil Monetary Penalty/Asset
Forfeiture Fund (AFF). Certain fines, penalties and forfeiture proceeds received
by NOAA are deposited into this fund, and subsequently used to pay
for certain enforcement-related expenses. When Congress established the
AFF it was deemed appropriate to use these proceeds to offset in part the
costs of administering the enforcement program. Expenses such as: costs
directly related to the storage, maintenance, and care of seized fish, vessels,
or other property during a civil or criminal proceeding; reimbursement to
other federal or state agencies for enforcement related services provided
pursuant to an agreement entered into with the Secretary; and other limited
uses as outlined in NOAA’s Asset Forfeiture Fund policy. NMFS Office of
Law Enforcement (OLE) manages the AFF, which is used by OLE and NOAA
General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation (GCEL) to pay for enforcement
activities. NOAA is proposing language in FY 2012 to create this fund
as described above.


*****Other Discretionary Reimbursable Funds

Sanctuaries Asset Forfeiture Fund $1,000,000
Fisheries Asset Forfeiture Fund $8,000,000
For the LAW to hold your forfeited Property= 9,000,000 Dollars


MANDATORY FUNDS!

PROMOTE AND DEVELOP AMERICAN FISHERY PRODUCTS & RESEARCH PERTAINING
TO AMERICAN FISHERIES FUND


The American Fisheries Promotion Act (AFPA) of 1980 amended the Saltonstall-
Kennedy (S-K) Act to authorize a grants program for fisheries research
and development projects to be carried out with S-K funds. S-K funds are
derived from a mandatory transfer from the Department of Agriculture to
NOAA from duties on imported fisheries products. An amount equal to 30%
of these duties is made available to NOAA and, subject to appropriation, is
available to carry out the purposes of the AFPA. The S-K grants program has
provided substantial assistance to address impediments to the management,
development, and utilization of the Nation’s living marine resources. Each
year a Federal Register notice is published announcing the program. The annual notice outlines priority areas, such as research on reduction/elimination of bycatch and aquaculture.
The remainder of the S-K funds, which are transferred as discretionary funds, are used to offset the
appropriation requirements of the Operations, Research, and Facilities account.

FISHERIES FINANCE PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The mandatory component of the Fisheries Finance Program Account (FFP) Account authority is subject
to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) (2 U.S.C. 661). The FCRA requires estimated loan costs
(FCRA cost) be appropriated in cash at the time Congress authorizes annual credit ceilings. FFP Account
loan activity demonstrates that the FCRA subsidy is negative. Statutory authority is found in 46 U.S.C.
1274 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. FFP Account lending guidelines are found at Title 50, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 253, subpart B; and tempered by NOAA’s sustainable fisheries policy and by the
practical considerations of a program that has been self-sustaining throughout its credit history.

FEDERAL SHIP FINANCING FUND

This account manages the loan guarantee portfolio that existed prior to the enactment of the Federal
Credit Reform Act of 1990.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT & RESTORATION FUND

The Environmental Improvement & Restoration Fund (EIRF) was created by the Department of Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 for the purpose of carrying out marine research activities
in the North Pacific. These funds will provide grants to Federal, State, private or foreign organizations or
individuals to conduct research activities on or relating to the fisheries or marine ecosystems in the North
Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean.

LIMITED ACCESS SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION FUND

Under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 304(d)(2)(A), NMFS must collect a fee to recover
the incremental costs of management, data collection, and enforcement of Limited Access Privilege (LAP)
programs. Funds collected under this authority are deposited into the “Limited Access System Administrative
Fund” (LASAF). Fees shall not exceed three percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under
any such program, and shall be collected at either the time of the landing, filing of a landing report, or
sale of such fish during a fishing season or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which the fish is harvested.
The LASAF shall be available, without appropriation or fiscal year limitation, only for the purposes
of administrating the central registry system; and administering and implementing the Magnuson-Stevens
Act in the fishery in which the fees were collected. Sums in the fund that are not currently needed for
these purposes shall be kept on deposit or invested in obligations of, or guaranteed by the U.S. Also, in
establishing a LAP program, a Regional Council can consider, and may provide, if appropriate, an auction
system or other program to collect royalties for the initial or any subsequent distribution of allocations. If an
auction system is developed, revenues from these royalties are deposited in the LASAF.

WESTERN PACIFIC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES FUND

Section 204(e) of the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act authorizes the establishment of the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund . This fund
serves as a repository for any permit payments received by the Secretary of Commerce for foreign fishing
within the U.S. EEZ around Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll, and Jarvis, Howland, Baker and Wake Islands, sometimes known as the Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA). Also, in the case of violations
by foreign vessels occurring in these areas, amounts received by the Secretary attributable to fines
and penalties shall be deposited into the fund. Foreign fishing is only allowed though a Pacific Insular
Area Fishery agreement. Before entering into such an Agreement, the Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council must develop a marine conservation plan that provides details on uses for any funds collected.
Marine Conservation Plans must also be developed by the Governors of the Territories of Guam
and American Samoa and of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and approved by the
Secretary of Commerce or designee. Additionally, any funds or contributions received in support of conservation
and management objectives under a marine conservation plan for any Pacific Insular Area other
than American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall be deposited in this fund.

NOAA CORPS COMMISSIONED OFFICERS RETIREMENT

The retirement system for the uniformed services provides a measure of financial security after release
from active duty for service members and their survivors. It is an important factor in the choice of a career
in the uniformed services and is mandated by Federal statutes under Title 10, United States Code. NOAA
transfers retirement pay funds to the Coast Guard, which handles the payment function for retirees and
annuitants. Health care funds for non-Medicare-eligible retirees, dependents, and annuitants are transferred
to the U.S. Public Health Service, which administers the health care program.

*****Other Mandatory Discretionary Funds

Coastal Zone Management Fund $1,500,000
Damage Assessment & Restoration Revolving Fund $3,000,000
Promote and Develop American Fisheries Products $42,171,000
Fisheries Finance Program Account $5,777,000
Federal Ship Financing Fund $740,000
Environmental Improvement & Restoration Fund $1,467,000
Limited Access System Administration Fund $2,231,000
Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries $1,000,000
NO AA Corp Commissioned Officers Retirement $28,269,000
A True Oxymoron; Other Mandatory Discretionary Funds: $86,155,000 DOLLARS!

TOTAL DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR NOAA:
$109,015,000.00



Director's Discretionary Poster Fund Day / NASA Extends JPL Contract / Space Station Freedom Contract Negotiations Concluded / NACA Reunion IV (Astrogram, Volume 31, Number 2, October 21, 1988)

AND IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH GARBAGE TO DIGEST IN ONE SITTING, GO GET SOME POPCORN, SIT BACK, and WATCH THIS THOROUGHLY BORING MOVIE, BROUGHT TO YOU BY NOAA & DR. JANE, IN PERSON: NOAA - NOAA FY2012 Constituent Budget Briefing OPENS IN ITS OWN, SO YOU MIGHT WISH TO OPEN IT IN ANOTHER TAB OR LOSE THE SANDBOX....

In-Kind Pol. Adv., for and approved by Gary A. Anderson,
Exploratory Candidate US Senate Fl. 2012

Think About Catch Shares, Sector Separation & R.I.C.O.

When it was passed in 1970, the RICO Act was primarily intended to eliminate the influence of the Mafia in the nation's economy. Though today, it could as well be compared to eliminating the NOAA's control of the fisheries, through the Trust Funds set up by PEW and the EDF. This should be the first priority of the U.S. Justice System.

Research shows that advocacy, community organizing, and civic engagement by nonprofit groups makes a substantial, measurable difference in the lives of families and communities. Nevertheless, many philanthropists harbor the view that working with government is not an effective or appropriate role for them to play, and they mistakenly believe that U.S. law prohibits them from doing so.

Philanthropy is fine when it is in bed with the government for reasons to help and benefit mankind. If on the other hand, an organization is involved with criminal infringement of intellectual property rights, it walks a fine line to the tune of R.I.C.O. to which much ado about nothing can be about something and PEW along with the EDF are dancing a tune with NOAA in possible infringement of the Jones Act as well RICO. Would not wish to be in their boat anytime soon. 

“We need to educate the non-fishing public. They think we’re just out here slaughtering fish and that isn’t what this is about. We’re trying to make a living and we’re trying to keep fishing,” Logan continued, citing the Alaskan crab fisheries that left 200 boats to dwindle down to approximately 15, in a time when our 'President' has said, “Not in America, we will preserve Jobs, Create Jobs and strengthen the Union!” hm, sounds like JOB LOSS TO ME! 

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget announced Wednesday they are forming the new bipartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform. Now PEW is deciding our budget too?

Guess what else PEW is into: 

1 The number of unmarried Americans as a whole has risen dramatically, according to a recent Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends report.

2 The Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works and Commerce panels hold meetings hosted by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

3 Pew Hispanic Center keeps tabs to numbers on, jobs held by illegal foreign workers.

4 Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

5 PEW Internet and American Life Project are trying to use social media to be more responsive to citizens, said Aaron Smith, senior research specialist.

6 PEW -Peterson Commission

7 PEW Forum

8-PEW Center on Global Climate Change

9 PEW Research Center

10 PEW Health Group

11 PEW Global Attitudes Project

12 PEW Environment Group’s U.S. Arctic Program

13 PEW Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a nonpartisan journalism watchdog organization

14 The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget announced Wednesday they are forming the new bipartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform. Jan. 14, 2009

15 PEW Environment Group Dec. 9, 2008 was worried how Bush gave back the rights the councils have today, so how did the councils take it away?

16 PEW Center for the People and the Press

That is a whole lot of Government! 

NOW THINK R.I.C.O. and how these terms could reflect to and within the fisheries industries from Catch Shares, Sector Separation and closures of various fish on the whim of old flawed data to no data at all in driving the prices of fish up and driving the Waterman out! 

Courts look more favorably upon RICO claims based upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and wires.

• A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. “South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council had even admitted to having flawed data on which they based potential limits and closures.” Could this be construed as a criminal act?
  
• RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. The formation of councils with bought and paid for Representative of EDF in voting regulations and rules in their favor in different councils and times might fall and apply here too.
  
• A RICO claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago. It is happening now, has in the past and I believe it passes this question too.
  

Now if there is a way to use the internet, as that is how they communicate and somehow introduce this into mail and wire fraud statutes, we would sink them!



Although the RICO Act can be used in many contexts, the statute is most easily understood in its intended context: NOAA. In the context of the NOAA, the defendant person (i.e., the target of the RICO Act) is Dr. Jane Lubchenco. The "racketeering activity" is the criminal activities in which NOAA engages, e.g., extortion, bribery, loan sharking, Catch share sales, false documentation, etc. Because the NOAA family has engaged in these criminal actions for years, the criminal actions constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. The government can criminally prosecute the Jane Lubchenco under RICO and send her to jail even if Jane Lubchenco has never personally killed, extorted, bribed or engaged in any criminal behavior. Jane Lubchenco can be imprisoned because she operated and managed a criminal enterprise that engaged in such acts. Moreover, under section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, the victims of the NOAA family (i.e., the extorted businessman, the employers whose employees were bribed, debtors of the loan shark, the family of a murder victim) can sue Jane Lubchenco civilly and recover the economic losses they sustained by reason of the NOAA's pattern of racketeering.
As a practical matter, the closer a plaintiff's case is to the Mafia scenario described above, the better chance the plaintiff has in succeeding under the RICO Act. Given the diverse factual scenarios that may confront attorneys and parties under RICO, it is always helpful to analogize non-Mafia factual scenarios to the prototypical RICO claim against the Mafia. It is always helpful to ask: who stands in the position of the Godfather, i.e., the defendant person? What is the equivalent of the Mafia family, i.e., the enterprise? This will give you a good start in evaluating the merits of any RICO claim you confront. If the facts are well-suited to the Mafia analogy, you likely have a stronger claim.

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp Without the element of racketeering activity, a RICO claim would be difficult to prove, but because one must also prove racketeering activity in addition to pattern, enterprise, operation and management, etc., a RICO claim is among the most difficult violations to establish. It has been said that the need to prove racketeering activity essentially requires a plaintiff or prosecutor to prove a crime within a CRIME. A plaintiff or prosecutor has no chance of proving the "greater" CRIME, i.e., the RICO violation, unless they can first establish a "lesser" crime, i.e., an act of racketeering (sometimes called a predicate act).
A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context of civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. s 1961(1).

Section 1961(1) of the RICO Act lists all of the crimes upon which a RICO violation must be predicated. Spool, 520 F.3d 178 at 183. A RICO claim can be predicated on not only numerous federal criminal violations, but also on violations of certain state criminal laws. With regard to the state crimes, the RICO Act states that a violation can be predicated upon "any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance . . . which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year." Thus, to prove a RICO claim, a plaintiff or prosecutor must first allege and prove an entire murder case, kidnapping case, arson case, robbery case, etc. Only if the evidence supports these "lesser" charges, can the plaintiff or prosecutor proceed with the remaining elements of the "greater" RICO claim, e.g., pattern, enterprise, operation and management. A RICO claim can also be predicated upon the violation of many, many federal criminal statutes. The federal crimes relate to a number of areas, including: counterfeiting, extortion, gambling, illegal immigration, obscenity, obstruction of justice, prostitution, murder for hire, interstate transportation of stolen property, and criminal infringement of intellectual property rights. These are but a few of the areas of federal criminal law out of which a RICO claim can arise.
Mail and Wire Fraud
The extensive use of RICO in the civil context is almost solely attributable to the inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985). The mail and wire fraud statutes essentially make it criminal for any one to use the mails or wires to advance a scheme to defraud. Note that the fraudulent statements themselves need not be transmitted by mail or wire; it is only required that the scheme to defraud be advanced, concealed or furthered by the use of the U.S. mail or wires. See 18 U.S.C., sections 1341, 1343. Because every business or corporation in the United States uses the mails or wires to make money, any business who allegedly engages in common law fraud arguably violates the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. As a result, almost any business that allegedly engages in common law fraud can theoretically be sued under the RICO Act.

3. Extortion
   

What laypeople call extortion, lawyers call a violation of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act states:

Whoever in anyway or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. As used in this section: (1) The term "robbery" means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining. (2) The term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. (3) The term "commerce" means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States, all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof, all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State and all commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

18 U.S.C., section 1951 (emphasis added). In essence, the Hobbs Act elevates all but the simplest acts of robbery and extortion to the level of federal crimes.

3. Extortion under Color Of Official Right JANE'S BOAT?
   

Many people are confused by extortion "under color of official right." Extortion under color of official right occurs when an agent of the government uses his or her legitimate governmental powers to obtain an illegitimate objective. For example, a police officer may have the authority to revoke a driver's license but he cannot offer to forego the legitimate exercise of his power in exchange for sexual favors from the driver. Likewise, a city council member may have the authority to rezone an area of town and thereby effectively put a company out of business, but the council member cannot threaten rezoning unless the company contributes to his re-election campaign. As one court recently stated: "In order to prove Hobbs Act extortion 'under color of official right,' 'the [plaintiff / prosecutor] need only show that a public official has obtained a payment to which he was not entitled, knowing that the payment was made in return for official acts." United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 768 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 268 (1992)). In short, governmental agents have a great deal of discretion when deciding how to exercise the powers of the government. When a government agent engages in extortion "under color of official right," he is essentially using the governmental powers with which he has been trusted to gain personal or illegitimate rewards.

5. CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE RICO - SECTION 1962(d)
   

A RICO claim is broad but a RICO conspiracy claim is even broader. Anyone who agrees or conspires to pursue the same criminal objective can be held liable for a RICO violation. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 22, 63-64 (1997). "If conspirators have a plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators." Id. at 64. A conspirator must simply intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all elements of a civil RICO claim. Id. at 65. Thus, there are two ways to effectively defend against a RICO conspiracy claim: 1) the defendant must prove he never intended to further the criminal endeavor; or 2) the defendant must prove that the endeavor did not satisfy the elements of a civil RICO claim. Because the first defense is fact based, it is seldom an appropriate defense to raise in a dispositve motion. The best way to undermine a claim for conspiracy on a dispositive motion is to undermine the legal sufficiency of the allegations supporting the substantive offense. See Howard v. American Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 751 (9th Cir. 2000) (a claim under section 1962(d) may not stand unless the plaintiffs can sustain a viable claim under another subsection of section 1962).

Now that I have signed my death warrant, I hold you the public as witness as an American citizen, it is my right, through free speech to educate the general public of a possible wrong which needs to be set right. The Federal Justice System, unless it too was bought by PEW, needs to view the recent adaptations of NOAA of late. Why would a high payed executive of the EDF, take a lower scale job by the U.S. government, NOAA unless there are priorities of a higher matter. Jane Lubchenco has proprietary data from years past, to which she uses to cripple the U.S. Fishing industry, WHY?