Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,183 messages

Updated 6/9/2024 1:00:09 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,662 messages

Updated 6/7/2024 11:28:41 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,197 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,171 messages

Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 11:56:14 AM

I know CAT won't do it, so I will. Two years ago when this boat ban first came up the 'forum' was ready skin CAT. It seemed like everyone was for the ban. The tide seems to have turned lately. I for one have done a 180 on the issue. But here is the thing, CAT and a couple of others have spent tens of thousands of dollars already on the law suit. Now it has to be appealled and the price tag is high. Cat has told me that a lawyer has agreed to take the appeal all the way to the Supreme Court for one very reasonable, yet still very high fee. The time is running out. Appeals have to be filed in a timely manner as I am sure you all know. Well that clock has been ticking for a while now. There has been a lot going on behind the scenes trying to acheive the financial goals needed to pursue the appeal, but have so far fallen short.

I think the general sentiment now is that this does affect us all. If not now, it opens the door for future restrictions. It is a shame that the HOBO's have abandoned him. They were quick to seek his membership last year, but refused to 'get on board' with him in the lawsuit. One of the board members (though her spouse) did however, join the lawsuit, BUT in FAVOR OF THE BAN!! This showed the hypocracy of the HOBO. I ranted about this last year when I discovered it. I got a lot of email support, but little public support. If that is what you wish to do, that is fine, but CAT NEEDS the support. He is fighting the good fight for all of us. It has cost him dearly, in time, 'freinds', and money. We can't give hiim back his time, but we can offer him support in the form of freinds, but most importantly with money. Unfortunately, any donation is not
tax deductable, but it is a nice investment in the future for us all. I am sure that CAT will be happy to provide and accounting of any monies to all who participate.

It is a shame that I have to make this appeal when there is an orginization that claims to be for "all stakeholders", yet is willing to toss overboard a certain segment of the stake holders. If jsut half the HOBO membership sent the same $15 to CAT for the appeal, it would be paid for and would go toward a fight that really does affect us all. I don't know the legallities, but it would be nice if folks could join as plaintiffs also, but I don't know if that is possible in the appeals stage. Numbers mean a lot to politicians, and judges ARE politicians in Alabama.

Bottom line is CAT needs our help, but is to proud to ask for it. I am sending a small check and I hope some of you will too. If you want to ask questions, I am sure he will be more than happy to answer them. Maybe a non-profit can even be set up for the purpose of the appeal. Some of you have more knowledge than me on that subject. And like I said, it is a shame the current non-profit is unwilling to help. It really shows the 'hidden' agenda of the HOBO. IF the HOBO did solicite funds for him, they would be tax deductible, but the puppets on the board are in favor of restricting our rights. I will say if for them however, the HOBO has taken no postion on the boat ban officially. But that in itself speaks volumes to me. The board members who joined the lawsuit in favor of the ban did so as private citizens, as is thier right. But the official silence on the issue is deafening.

CAT is standing up for what he thinks is right, but has not pushed his burden on anyone. You can do as I did and make your check payable to Frank Wilson Atty, P.O. BOX 2389 MONTGOMERY, AL. 36102 c/o Boat Ban

Time is of the essence folks. The clock is ticking.

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

Name:	ALSCN -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 12:16:57 PM

Thanks for the information LTL !

Name:	Freshwater Bay Girl -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 12:33:14 PM

I agree that this is the beginning of no end in sight. I saw this happen along the coast. Thanks.

Name:	Ulysses E. McGill -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 12:42:08 PM

LTL,

The HOBO's are a very large group and there are many involved that do not support the boat ban (I'm one of those many). There are also many on the other side that do support the ban. It is well documented that you have a beef with a few of the HOBO's, but I think you are being unfair to stereotype the group. The HOBO's are trying to do good things on many issues that have strong support. The boat ban is a divisive issue, but we still live in the USA and everyone is still allowed to have a personal opinion regardless of affiliations.

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 12:47:01 PM

I agree, but an opinion is one thing, joining the suit is another. And I, just like them, am entitled to my opinion. My information comes from more places than this forum. I have some VERY interesting emails that I think you might find interesting also. Having an opinion is one thing, attempting to force it on others is something else.

Name:	Lovn_Lake_Livn -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 12:50:43 PM

You should be expecting a check from me.

Name:	Council Roc Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:05:23 PM

The sky is not falling. I would imagine that before efforts to limit all watercraft from LM are persued, that you would see efforts trying to expand this particular piece of legislation into more than the 3 named lakes. Limiting that expansion would seem to me to be where the door could be closed to distinguish the flames of future watercraft limitation legislation.

Name:	CAT BOAT -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:11:56 PM

LTL, two years ago you would/could not have made that post. I'll take it your post as a complement. I have not gone my pursuit alone. There are four others involved with me. It has been a long road and we hope to have the Ban overturned. Yea, I used to get skint up pretty good on the forum about the subject, that is why rather than go away, I just kep't my mouth shut for the most part when it came to the Boat Ban. It divided all of us into two different sides. That is terrible, all of us enjoy the lake. There are many things I have learned that some would not believe. This Ban was pushed by everything BUT what is good for the lake. Many of you have become my friends and customers. For that I thank you all. And to those that don't support the ban. We're doing the best we can.

Name:	Ulysses E. McGill -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:14:05 PM

Your opinion is also valid and I never suggested otherwise. If you have proof that the HOBO's (as an organization) are secretly supporting the boat ban, I'd like to see it.. Again, I know there are individual efforts on both sides, but to stereotype the group is like saying that every republican supports the war in Iraq and that every democrat wants higher taxes.....neither of which are close to the truth.

Name:	cg -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:22:54 PM

my check will be coming soon and as often as I can, this ban is un-american, and I believe in the american flag I fly, that's why!
cg=computer guy

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:27:59 PM

Do I don't. In fact just the oppisite. I put in the original post that as a group they have taken no postion. I personally feel that is wrong, but it is just my opinion. I do KNOW however, that one of the board members joined the lawsuit in favor of the ban. That is thier right, but it is also the right of the membership to know this. As the board goes, so goes the orginization. Puppets move as their strings are pulled. If you are for ALL STAKEHOLDERS you can't work to keep some off the lake.

PS- you have mail.

Name:	Bob -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:35:24 PM

Are you kidding me? $15? You have four big boat enthusiasts who plan to take on the fight (after losing round one decisively) and its supported by a few folks that "claim" that they will send $15? first of all I bet you don't get the money even promised here. Secondly, it will do NO good. Move on, turn the page. it is OVER people.

Ocean going vessels belong in the ocean! Thats where they are legal...if i thought this was a real fight, which it is not, i wuld match all of your contributions (all $75 bucks worth) and give it to the gov't to fight this frivilous suit...ite OVER...there is nothing more to see here...please move on...

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 1:52:04 PM

You are so sure it is over, why not send a check anyway. It would be a small price to pay for the right to say I told you so when this is all over. And BTW boob, once the appeall is filed, I am sure the temprary injunction will be renewed, so there goes your serenity for at least one more summer....lol.

Send the check bob, even if it is only a paltry $15.

Name:	HP HQ -	Reply
Subject:	is this the bob???
Date:	4/16/2008 2:00:01 PM

is this the bob who teaches sailing at harbor pointe?i surely hope not

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	is this the bob???
Date:	4/16/2008 2:06:25 PM

I don't think so. Cap'n Bob is way smarter than this guy and lives on 49 south, not on the lake. But you never know.......

Name:	Aussie77 -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 2:09:47 PM

Trying to get it expanded to include Jordan already. Once something is in place all you have to do is just add to it. More places..more stuff! All this and for what reason?

Name:	CAT BOAT -	Reply
Subject:	is this the bob???
Date:	4/16/2008 2:23:32 PM

Spurl?

Name:	Aussie77 -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 2:23:54 PM

You have my money, thanks for the information. Why are they not soliciting money from the boating manufacturers, the nmma, others in the boating industry? Maybe they are..just interested. They had big articles in the boat magazines etc when it was trying to get passed.

Name:	Council Roc Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Boat ban lawsuit appeal
Date:	4/16/2008 2:49:01 PM

Then it is simply up to the good folks on Lake Jordan to coordinate their fight. They are up to bat. This is what makes this country great! Don't like legislation that has been appealed and ultimately found to be constitutional - vote them out. Having some experience in the Ga legislative process, the addition of "more stuff" is a heck of alot harder to do than is intimated in this and other related threads. Legislators like to hold onto their political capital to use when it can be of most benefit. It doesn't get spent easily and I feel that the effort to expand both the breadth and dimension of this particular law would leave some cupboards a little bare.

My question to Steve and his group that has appealed this law, is what groups of individuals were not equally protected? I believe we all know the answer, and this cuts to the core of my concern about public lobbying for contributions to support a business interest under the guise of "we're all in this together". That would be like me asking for help in my legal pursuit of equitable BC/BS reimbursement under the umbrella of ultimately lower premiums for all those insured. Not that I would not contribute to his cause, but selfishly I must ask "what's in it for me".

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Couple of points Doc.
Date:	4/16/2008 3:25:47 PM

First the ruling hasn't been appealed yet. That is what the funds are for, the appeal. The local judge in Montgomery made a ruling, but even the timing of that ruling is questionable. As for the equal protection, well anyone having a boat over 26'11" that will do over 60mph.

As for expansion, just the fact that it is already being extended to Jordan shows the course of things to come. I respect your opinions but Alabama and Georgia are governed somewhat differently. I beleive GA has 'home rule' and AL doesn't. EVERYTHING in AL goes through Montgomery, even local legislation requires a constitutional ammendment in this state. Power is centered in the state house. They can pass laws relating to one area without so much as a public hearing, but cities and counties must go through them to enact a leash law. This gives the state legislature tremendous power that other states don't have. It also gives them great arrogance, which was shown is some email exchanges that one of Rep. Masks forwarded to me today.

I would also like to point out that it was me that made the appeal for contributions, not CAT. I jsut know that he has been stressing the money for an appeal since before the original case went to trial. I would hate to see the case end due to lack of funds. I think realistically everyone knew how the first decision was going to go. It will have to go frther up the food chain IMHO. It is a slipery slope that has been laid before us, but CAT's always land on their feet!

Name:	Council Roc Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Couple of points Doc.
Date:	4/16/2008 3:59:30 PM

LTL, I was talking in generalities when referring to the appeals process, sorry. That is scary, consolidated power in Montgomery. However, I'm sure there is some risk involved when waking the slumbering masses. What that risk is, you could say better than I ever could over here.

I don't have lawyer pants to put on, but would you say that 18 wheelers who are prohibited from hauling through the Atlanta 75/85 connector unless they have business in the ATL are unequally protected? They must use the perimeter no matter how much extra time or fuel is involved if they are passing through. Granted, they are not outright outlawed, but neither are the 26'11"/60 mph. They are just required to go another route where they can be handled better and are less a risk to the traveling public. Sound familiar?

I was not pointing you out directly regarding the public request for help for Steve. I was only trying to make a general point that sometimes people donate for truly altruistic reasons, some prefer to have a better handle on the funds purpose.

Always a pleasure, CRD

Name:	CAT BOAT -	Reply
Subject:	Couple of points Doc.
Date:	4/16/2008 4:20:40 PM

I am not sure I understood the question anyway.

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Couple of points Doc.
Date:	4/16/2008 5:00:15 PM

Points well made and taken Doc. But there are other issues also. One of the major reasons the law was 'needed' was shoreline erosoin, yet no testimony was given in regards to how these boats affect shoreline erosoin. In fact, 'wake boats' by there very name and nature create more wake than the banned boats and for that matter I can do circles in a pontoon and create HUGE wakes. That is neither here nor there in this discussion. We all agree that regulation is the solution, we just disagree on what and how. Speed limits would have worked just as well IF the issue were speed. It wasn't. I think CAT would be the first to admit that the behavior of a few, is what caused the problem. But banning is taking it to far IMHO. To use your analogy, a few trucks break the no downtown connector rule, so the legislature bans all trucks from the metro ATL. because Birmingham is a better route anyway.

As I have said, the slippery slope is what scares me.

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos