September 30, 2007 - 8:13am | jtgranger

Is that a personal moral shortcoming mossback?

And are they really inside or outside the box?

Page 15, in Holmes "Common Law"

"...The Roman law delt mainly with living creatures,-with animals and slaves. If a man was run over, it did not surrender the wagon which crushed him, but the ox which drew the wagon. At this stage the notion is easy to understand. The desire for vengence may be felt as strongly against a slave as against a freeman, and it is not without example nowadays that a like passion should not be felt against an animal. The surrender of the slave or beast empowered the injured party to do his will upon them. Payment by the owner was merely a privilege in case he wanted to buy the vengance off.
It will readely be imagined that such a system as had been described could not last when civilization had advanced to any considerable height. What had been the privilege of buying off the vengence by agreement, of paying the damage instead of surrendering the body of the offender, no doubt became a general custom. The Aqulian law, passed about a couple centuries later than the date of the Twelve Tables, enlarged the sphere of compensation for bodily injuries. Interpertation enlarged the Aqulian law. Masters became personally liable for certin wrongs committed by their slaves with their knowledge, where previously they were only bound to surrender the slave. If a pack-mule threw off his burden upon a passer-by because he had been improperly overloaded, or a dog which might have been restrained escaped from his master and bit anyone, the old noxial action, as it was called gave way to an action under the new law to enforce a general personal liability.
Still later, ship owners and innkeepers were made laible as if they were wrongdoers for wrongs committed by those in their employ on board ship or in the tavern, although of course committed without their knowledge. The true reason for this exceptional responsibility was the exceptional confidence which was necessarily reposed in carriers and inkeepers. But some jurists, who regarded the surrender of children and slaves as a privilege intended to limit liability, explained that this new liability on the ground that the inkeeper or ship owner was to a certain degree guilty of negligance in having employed the services of bad men. This was the first insance of a master being made unconditionally liable for the wrongs of his servant. The reason given for it was of general application, and the principal expanded to the scope of the reason
The law as to ship owners and inkeepers introduced another more startling innovation. It made them responsible when those whom they employed were free, as well as when they were slaves. For the first time one man was made answerable for the wrongs of another who was also answerable himself, and who had standing before the law. This was a great change from the bare permission to ransom one's slaves as a privilege. But here we have the history of the whole modern doctrine of master and servant, and principal and agent. All servants are now as free and as liable to suit as their masters. Yet the principal introduced on special grounds in a special case, where servants were slaves, is now the general law in this country and England, and under it men daily have to pay large sums for other peoples acts, in which they had no part and for which thay are in no sense to blame. And to this day the reasons offered by the Roman jurists for an exceptional rule is made to justify this universal and unlimited responsibility..."

Still working on that 7th Amendment Doctrine at Icicle, with Exxon and that drunk driving case, with the great "secret backroom deals" discussed by Judge Holland.

I guess mossback, I do quit blaming everyone else, except for those involved in this clearly erronious "astonishing ruse" as discssed by Judge Holland in that Anchorage District Court.

Or are Seven Seattle Seafood Processors, part of the "personal moral shortcoming's" issues discussed clearly by Justice Holmes, a Favorite of the Justice Scalia and his associates, on the highest bench.

No it's not blaming everyone else mossback, it's blaming those responsible, for the natural acts of their employee's actions.

That includes bobby's friends, on the slime line, or in the big fancy office, in that big fancy chair.

Page 6.

"A man has an animal orf known ferocious habits, which escapes and does his neighbor damage. He can pprove that the animal escaped through no negligance of his, but still he is held liable. Why? It is says the analytical jurist, because,although he was not negligent at the moment of escape, he was guilty of remote heedlessness, or negligance, or fault, in having such a creature at all. And one by whos fault damage is done ought to pay for it.
A bakers man, while driving his masters cart to deliver hot rools in the mourning, run another man down. The master has to pay for it. And when he has asked why he should have to pay for the wrongful act of an independant and responsible being, he has been answered from the time of Ulpian to Austin, that it is because he was to blame for employing an improper person. If he answers, that he used the greatest possible care in choosing his driver, he is told that is no excuse.; and then perhaps the reason is shifted, and it is said that there ought to be a remedy against some one who can pay the damages, or that such wrongful acts as by ordinary human laws, are likely to happen in the course of the service are imputable to the service..."

And if this still confuses the buyers of our Seattle Seven Seafood Processor's, with no blame whatsoever on a fisherman, unless of course their part owners, and do not control the helm whatsoever, it truly dosent matter where the blame lies.

70 Federal; Agents Flying North to Alaska can't be wrong on the criminal side can they mossback?

Page 183.

"...The neglect which occasioned the damage might be a mere ommission, and what there was there akin to trespass in a nonfeaseance to sustain the anology upon which trespasses on the case was founded? Morever, to charge a man for not acting, you must show it was his duty to act..."

It time time to quit fishing for tuition mossback, possession of standing truly isnt confusing, and one can only blame themselves, for these errors from the Article III member from Fairbanks.

You cant keep fishing the same hole mossback? You are mistaken. or is that Number 7 on the Bill of Rights, still confusing?

And a Gillnetter's going to have to teach you how to go seining???

Page, 217 "Possession"

The Court of the Queens Bench even went so far as to decide, notwithstanding a verdict the other way, that when fish were nearly surrounded by a seine, with an opening of seven fathoms between the ends, at which point boats were stationed to frighten them from escaping, they were not reduced to possession as against a stranger who rowed through the opening and helped himself..."

You own any of that standing, mossback?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 29, 2007 - 11:24pm | akwapsc

here here

Don, Dennis, Mark, Larry, John, Ralph, the entire management team.

But the unsung heroes here are the McKays, the Swansons, the Conn family and so many others who kept the plants going year after year since 1965.

Bill Haley at the shop. Nathan Midkif. Charlie the iceman.

the list goes on and on.

All these bloghead loser blowhards can talk and talk but I'll bet there's not one successful processor or businessman in this loop who's bashing Icicle.

If you were there for the ride--42 years-- and I was witness to it although I never got a front seat or touched the steering wheel, this was about great teamwork.

I would like to say I helped but I never worked even a single hour for Icicle. Caught them alot of humpies though. Yes and the fishermen do count. When we're fishermen stockholders then we get to share in any mistakes or fines the company received. But then again we get to share in the sale. And yes. Steve. There was just barely enough left over to pay those nasty fines. Just may get to buy the kids xmas presents this year after all.

Talk on boys. Start your own company, run it from now until 2049, share it with the fishermen and the employees, grow it until it becomes the largest on the west coast and then shrink it down to #3 or #4 and then pop off.

Oh. There's one more unsung, but acknowledged hero as well in this case.

My Dad, Bob Thorstenson, Sr. and his late partners Magnus Martens-my grandfather- and Tom Thompson- my uncle- and Gordon Jensen.

What shady dealings you might find on him, Mr. Taufen. He's a friend of Don Young's and Ted Stevens. That alone should make him an enemy of your trashy character.

bobbyt

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 30, 2007 - 8:21am | jtgranger

Bloghed Looser Blowhards?

"And the right of the individual shall not be infringed."

No teamwork is required boobyt?

Share those nasty fines, that really havent been seen yet.

Or was George Washington a liar on April 30, 1789?

Like Captain William Bligh on April 28, 1789?

Where did you go to school at?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 28, 2007 - 11:01am | staufen

Coward...won't answer you back.

The clown won't answer you back on that one, as he hides behind the white dusted face out of fear. And he believes an orchestrated is the three-piece playing the music on his favorite Disney film.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 27, 2007 - 10:51am | akwapsc

never got the $2 billion a year.

geez.

a company owned by fishermen and employees, a majority of whom are Alaskans.

and they forgot to thank themselves.

oh. and steve-o. after 42 years and $84 billion in lost Abusive Transfer Pricing, you'd think that we'd all be flying out to the Caymans to get that lock box with Icicle's share of the $84 billion.

now that's our next act. to join groundswell and look for OUR $84 billion that you are so proud to share with us.

certainly we Alaskans and we fishermen should have privvy to that $84 billion, not you carpetbagging retread, unemployed processors.

bobbyt

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 28, 2007 - 8:06am | staufen

And a Geico, "What?"

Enjoy your offbase anger ... from your Edmonds area home, or aboard the Pamela Rae at dock 8 in Seattle.

You more than anyone can't join the Groundswell. It takes integrity, a good heart, a public serving mindset, and response-ability, and a lot more you will obviously never have.

PS: Do you have your family's Alaska PFD checks mailed to your home in Seattle? Or is the Pacific Seafood Group going to bring them by your house when Dulcich delivers the Icicle buyout checks?

Please use some of the money to go back to finish grade school... as you missed the part about We the People, and why Antitrust laws were needed.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 28, 2007 - 9:39pm | akwapsc

ready

to come help find the $2 billion a year and you still won't have me.

that's why i quit as pres of ufa after 7 years....

to find the real Alaska Gold Rush, the missing $ 2 billion a year that Stevo and gang are gonna get us.

bobbyt

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 28, 2007 - 9:59am | peter1

The worm still turning

Yes, but you forget "the worm turns." And it will "turn again" on the injustice brought by these findings, or so he would believe...44 years is a long time to suddenly have to wake up and temper one's arrogance. It doesn't come naturally to him, don't forget. Quoting Henry VI by mistake is risky bidness.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 26, 2007 - 3:46pm | akwapsc

yeah, you freakshow

as if you liked icicle with the 65% employee shares and the fishermen involved in the company before.

management will be the same, just different folks shouldering the risk and reward that the Petersburg people took for 42 years.

didn't see ya all buying up your part of the state so that it could be owned by locals, fishermen and the workers at the plants.

get a life...

bobby thorstenson

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 27, 2007 - 7:02am | staufen

Life.

Def: an appropriate sentence for a SE seine clown.

Fishermen will shoulder the risk - like a load of dirt bricks.
Fox Paine will throw the reward sack over its shoulder, like a shoplifting resource robber baron.

Bobby T - before you got your sellout check, did you have to set aside >$140,000 for your share of the Adak criminal fine?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 26, 2007 - 7:34pm | jtgranger

Freakshow? That's interesting boobyt.

I notice that freakshow, at the U.S. District Court in Anchorage is working out very well boobyt.

When is your turn coming for more of the freaks testifing against themselves?