GMFMC Ineligible Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel Members

2»

Replies

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,466 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Art,
    You have a habit of calling out a certain moderator with each and every post - people have talked to you about it and you promised to cease and desist. I guess your word is as good as you make it.

    The same editor that you cut and pasted admitted that Bob Gill was working for GSI at the same time he was working for the Gulf Council.

    Are you saying Bob Gill did not receive funding from The Ocean Conservancy when he went to DC to represent The Ocean Conservancy after he got booted off the Gulf Council?
    Tom, you and others on here are on a witch hunt.
    I won't stand by and let you(a moderator on this forum) and your cronies drag a good mans name thru the mud with unfounded allegations.

    I'm not making a personal attack on you Tom, I merely copied & pasted someone else's opinion of you from a link that one of your supporters posted on this thread.

    Again, define funding... I'd bet there are some sportfishing interests somewhere who receive "funding" from their groups yet still lobby their state and federal entities on issues pertinent to their stakeholders.

    I'll apologize for calling you out (even though TM was copy&pasting your comments).
    IMHO character assassination based on unfounded accusations isn't the purpose of this forum.. or is it?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    Exposing the revolving door of people working for the federal government then working for the corporations lobbying the federal government is no witch hunt. It is vital to understand what is happening here, especially with all of the deception and misinformation that the astroturf crowd is being paid to put out there.

    I'll let the other moderators determine if you are making a personal attack or not, especially considering your track record of late.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Again, define funding... I'd bet there are some sportfishing interests somewhere who receive "funding" from their groups yet still lobby their state and federal entities on issues pertinent to their stakeholders.

    "FUNDING" - What Ocean Conservancy did to start the Commercial Seafood Lobby Group, GSI.
    - What EDF did to start Gulf Wild
    - What Gulf Wild did to start CFA

    "Paid Position", Employee, Agent, contractor or other personal that receive compensation for services or goods rendered.
    This included financial or material compensation and reimbursables. Sitting on the Board of Directors is a
    "Paid Position" even if financial compensation is not given. The latter includes Not for Profits. Reimbursement
    for travel, food, lodging or other expenses in connection with providing services, testimony can be considered
    a paid position.

    The rules applied to individuals and groups that lobbied before the Gulf Council and were holding position on one of the
    various committees. Since the Council changed the rules and eliminated this eligibility requirement in October 2014,
    New committee members are exempt from such as a COI issue, but those that were in conflict before the rules were
    changed remain in conflict. The Council itself may have problems from their action given they changed eligibility rules
    while individuals were out of compliance, perhaps to cover them from legal issues. Who knew what, when, etc., makes
    a big difference. Either way, those out of compliance and failing to disclose COI violations prior to October 2014 are still
    in violation.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,466 Admiral
    Sitting on a BOD is a paid position??? By whose definition?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Docked WagesDocked Wages Posts: 2,746 Admin
    All,

    Lets stay on topic of this thread without name calling or posting negative comments from other users from other sites. Anything posted with the intent to antagonize or disrupt this ennvironment will be removed. Thanks for your understanding.
    Mark Wilson
    AF1.124213220_sq_thumb_s.jpg
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Sitting on a BOD is a paid position??? By whose definition?

    NOAA COI rules.

    Also and aside from the standalone definition, its likely that reimbursement for travel, food, lodging,
    etc occurs, making it an additional conflict since that to is considered income from services provided.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    Here's the response from the email I sent to the Gulf Council regarding the removal of the wording, thus allowing paid lobbyists to stack the Council/AP's, and my response back....

    Dear Mr. Hilton,

    During its October, 2014, meeting in Mobile, Alabama, the Council voted unanimously to discontinue the SSC Conflict of Interest Policy. Instead, because SSC members are now required to submit a Statement of Financial Interest (SOFI) each year, the Council will use the information provided in the SOFI to identify potential conflicts of interest before determining whether an individual is appointed to the SSC. The inquiry to staff prompted the recent revision of the website which should have been addressed after the October meeting.

    Kevin Anson




    Mr. Anson,
    Thank you for your response to my inquiry.

    It is a sorry state of affairs when our Councils and APs are allowed to be stacked with paid lobbyists. There was a clear and urgent need for the rule prohibiting membership on any scientific committee (SSC, SAP, or SEP) if that person directly receives funding from an association that lobbies the Council on fishery issues, for obvious reasons.

    So now, the paid lobbyists are not prohibited, they just must declare such on the financial disclosure forms.

    That didn't work so great for 3 of the Gulf Council members recently did it? Embarrassing.

    Good luck Mr. Anson - I do appreciate your efforts to maintain some sense of credibility for the Gulf Council, but I'm afraid you are outnumbered.

    All the best,
    Tom Hilton
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Here's the response from the email I sent to the Gulf Council regarding the removal of the wording, thus allowing paid lobbyists to stack the Council/AP's, and my response back....

    Dear Mr. Hilton,

    During its October, 2014, meeting in Mobile, Alabama, the Council voted unanimously to discontinue the SSC Conflict of Interest Policy. Instead, because SSC members are now required to submit a Statement of Financial Interest (SOFI) each year, the Council will use the information provided in the SOFI to identify potential conflicts of interest before determining whether an individual is appointed to the SSC. The inquiry to staff prompted the recent revision of the website which should have been addressed after the October meeting.

    Kevin Anson




    Mr. Anson,
    Thank you for your response to my inquiry.

    It is a sorry state of affairs when our Councils and APs are allowed to be stacked with paid lobbyists. There was a clear and urgent need for the rule prohibiting membership on any scientific committee (SSC, SAP, or SEP) if that person directly receives funding from an association that lobbies the Council on fishery issues, for obvious reasons.

    So now, the paid lobbyists are not prohibited, they just must declare such on the financial disclosure forms.

    That didn't work so great for 3 of the Gulf Council members recently did it? Embarrassing.

    Good luck Mr. Anson - I do appreciate your efforts to maintain some sense of credibility for the Gulf Council, but I'm afraid you are outnumbered.

    All the best,
    Tom Hilton

    Was this reply to Tom Hilton or Tarpon Monozide? I can't tell , since Tarpon posted replies to his queries, where the saluatory was to "Tom".
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    It glaringly obvious why the Gulf Council conveniently changed the law.

    Instead of the Gulf Council enforcing that law on the SSC, SAP and SEP members that were breaking it they just changed the law to try to give amnesty and make who was illegally on those panels now legal.

    Like a bank robber robbing a bank, instead of the prosecutor prosecuting for bank robbery he just makes bank robbery for him legal and wala, no offense and nothing to see here.

    The problem for them is that they changed the law because they knew the panels were full of ineligible members on them so instead of doing the right, the moral and the ethical thing they did the sleazy undemocratic unamerican thing by making something that for years was rightfully illegal now legal. Because of this, you can bet that the Gulf Council and all of their staff have heard the magic words from certain NGO's "If you ever leave the Gulf Council we have a job waiting for you!" Now if you don't toe their line there will be no cushy high paying job for you at their NGO so it's best for your federal career to go along to get along just in case you need a job at that NGO later on.

    The Gulf Council changing the law on a certain date does not exonerate anyone who was on those Gulf Council panels who was ineligible before the law was sleazily changed as those ineligible violations still stand and do not go away because the law was conveniently changed to cover the @$$es of those who were ineligible.

    What these facts show is that the Gulf Council fully knew there were lots of ineligible members on the Gulf Council panels and went against their oath of office because they did nothing to get unlawful sitting panel members off per the ethical law that made them ineligible but they did sleazily act when they made what was rightfully illegal legal, but that was not retroactive and the previous ineligible violations still stand. And those violations did not go away because of the Gulf Council's new policy.

    The Gulf Council's making ineligible SSC, SAP and SEP members eligible by the stroke of a pen is evidence produced by them showing that the fully knew that was I am saying is true that there were plenty of members on those Gulf Council panels that were ineligible to be on those panels. Panel members were illegally sitting on an SSC, SAP or SEP but did the Gulf Council do the right thing by law and kick them off no they did the wrong and unethical thing by taking out their Gulf Council pencil with an eraser and erase the law that was put there to protect the taxpayers and make all the panel members the Gulf Council clearly knew were illegally sitting now legal. The Gulf Council pencil with an eraser can not erase previous ineligible violations before the law was conveniently erased.

    Now for more violations of CURRENT FEDERAL LAW BY A FORMER GULF COUNCIL MEMBER NOW SITTING ON THE Gulf Council SSC AND SAP.

    http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/fmc_members_conduct_rules-2013-e.pdf


    RULES THAT WILL APPLY AFTER LEAVING COUNCIL SERVICE
    There are a few restrictions that will apply to you even after you terminate your service with a Fishery Management Council; these concern contacting the United States Government on behalf of others and using nonpublic information.

    Restrictions on Contacting the Federal Government. After you leave Council service, you will be barred from communicating with any Federal agency or Federal court on behalf of someone else concerning a particular matter involving specific parties with the intent to influence Government action if you participated personally
    and substantially in the matter as a Council member. Note that this is similar to the restriction described above that applies while you serve on the Council.

    You will also be barred for two years after leaving Council service from representing anyone before any Federal agency or Federal court concerning a particular matter involving specific parties in which you did not personally participate, but which was under your “official responsibility,” during your last year of your term of service, which would include any specific party matter pending before the Council during that period.

    Disclosure and Use of Nonpublic Information. You will continue to be restricted after leaving Council service from disclosing or using nonpublic information you obtained through your Council service that is protected by statute, until its release has been authorized by the Council or the Department of Commerce.

    Notice is says: "two years"

    Bob Gill was a voting Gulf Council member until his replacement was sworn in, in late summer of 2012.

    The Gulf Fishery News of June/July 2012 shows right on it that Bob Gill is still a voting member of the Gulf Council in June/July of 2012.

    According to the Gulf Seafood Institute's (GSI) conveniently provided timeline on their website Bob Gill was advocating for the Ocean Conservancy before May of 2014. Because that was inside of the 2 year federal law restriction that says he could not legally advocate for the Ocean Conservancy within 2 years of leaving as a Council member that testimony was unlawful.

    Gill was unlawfully advocating before a federal agency for OC within two years of leaving the Gulf Council. Bob Gill's two year restriction after leaving the Gulf Council in late summer of 2012 would not have been up until late summer of 2014, but Gill was advocating for the OC before May 9, 2014 clearly within the 2 year exclusion.

    FAIR USE!
    "News Editor says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:42 pm"

    "Thomas, Bob Gill has never worked for the Ocean Conservancy (OC) or any NGO, period. He was asked to testify by the OC twice before Congress, for which they reimbursed him travel expenses, a W-2 was never filed by the OC. I really wish that you would get your facts straight before making libelous accusations. You are familiar with the recent court ruling on two libelous statements made on social media. I would suggest you stick to the facts. Also, he was not “dumped” by the Gulf Council, he served at the pleasure of the Florida governor who did not reappoint him."

    That GSI statement about Bob Gill politically advocating for the Ocean Conservancy by testifying before Congress which is a federal agency was dated May 9, 2014 and the news editor is talking about Bob Gill testifying for the Ocean Conservancy before a federal agency before May 9, 2014. May 9, 2014 to late summer of 2012 when Bob Gill's replacement would have been sworn in is not 2 years. In fact it is inside of 2 years in violation of the law.

    The Gulf Fishery News of June/July 2012 shows right on it that Bob Gill is still a voting member of the Gulf Council in June/July of 2012. Two years just from June/July 2012 is clearly less than 2 years later than May 9, 2014.

    Influence peddling is as influence peddling does!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Was this reply to Tom Hilton or Tarpon Monozide? I can't tell , since Tarpon posted replies to his queries, where the saluatory was to "Tom".

    The reply from Mr. Anson was to me.

    The salutation in TM's post was to me - apparently TM copied and pasted a post of mine from the GSI website from last year.

    And no, I am not Tarpon Monoxide nor do I know who TM is although I do admire his thoroughness and tenacity in uncovering the facts.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Right, Right, Got ya....:applause
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,466 Admiral
    I heard that Tarpon Monoxide was an alias for another member.
    I thought we didn't tolerate that on this forum???

    Lord, I'd hate to bring **** into this.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • saltybradsaltybrad Posts: 501 Officer
    It's the commercials that are always caught with the hands in the cookie jar, how have we been reduced to fighting for scraps from sloppy lobbyists???
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    Huckleberry and Anumber1 - what are you implying? Please be more specific.
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    Dear Mr. Hilton,

    During its October, 2014, meeting in Mobile, Alabama, the Council voted unanimously to discontinue the SSC Conflict of Interest Policy. Instead, because SSC members are now required to submit a Statement of Financial Interest (SOFI) each year, the Council will use the information provided in the SOFI to identify potential conflicts of interest before determining whether an individual is appointed to the SSC. The inquiry to staff prompted the recent revision of the website which should have been addressed after the October meeting.

    Kevin Anson

    The inquiry to staff prompted the recent revision of the website which should have been addressed after the October meeting.
    IS FALSE.

    The inquiry to staff did not prompt the recent revision of the website as Mr. Hanson falsely and misleadingly claims because their website was changed well before any inquiries to the Gulf Council staff were made. The recent revision was made because they saw the ineligible Gulf Council SAP, SEP and SSC members thread on this site and changed their website right after that and well before any inquiries to them about it were made.

    Slippery is as Slippery does.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    saltybrad wrote: »
    It's the commercials that are always caught with the hands in the cookie jar, how have we been reduced to fighting for scraps from sloppy lobbyists???

    What scraps? After about 7 years, the CCA successfully got the Council to strongly support a reallocation of 2.5% from the commercial side to the recreational side because of changes in the way MRIP is conducted. So, the Council gave all that increase from the MRIP changes to the recreational side. Instead of 51/49 commercial/recreational, its going to be 48.5/51.5. The recs get a whole 350,000 more pounds, and everyone except the commercials was very happy.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    I would like to see how the GSRSMA would manage the fish based on REAL science and for the best interests of their constituents instead of "Management By Special Interests" that we are currently experiencing.

    http://www.coastalconservation.us/docs/FinalLetter_of_Support_031315_with_Mgmt_Model_and_Bullets.pdf
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I would like to see how the GSRSMA would manage the fish based on REAL science and for the best interests of their constituents instead of "Management By Special Interests" that we are currently experiencing.

    http://www.coastalconservation.us/docs/FinalLetter_of_Support_031315_with_Mgmt_Model_and_Bullets.pdf


    I think everyone would really like to see some details on there plans. As of now it just sounds like a concept or a "Want To", manage the fishery.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    I think everyone would really like to see some details on there plans. As of now it just sounds like a concept or a "Want To", manage the fishery.

    http://www.sportsmenslink.org/uploads/page/STATE_SNAPPER_MGT_GSRSMA_FINAL.pdf
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    Starts at the bottom of page 29, "Discussion of SSC Conflict of Interest Policy"
    As you are reading the minutes from the gulf council meeting when the council voted to let paid special interest lobbyists representing skewed interests sit on the SSC, SEP and SAP this further corrupted the process. Now keep in mind that the 3 Council members Harlon Pearce, Corky Perret and Johnny Greene rightly called out by the FRA had not and did not legally file their 2013 and 2014 Gulf Council financial interest statements at the time they voted on suspending the previous ethics control rules on SSC, SEP and SAP members back in a council meeting in October of 2014. This Gulf Council sleazy vote in effect now allows lobbyists that are paid for by special interest lobbying corporations to push the corporations funders' special interests for that lobbying corporation disguised as a conservancy or seafood institute and at the same time some council members disgustingly and unethically double dip the taxpayers by being voting taxpayer paid Gulf Council members or on the now paid by the taxpayer SSC committee and at the same time lobbying for OC and GSI and other special interests.

    After the FRA publicly busted Harlon Pearce for not filing a legal Gulf Council financial disclosure statement in 2013 and 2014 of course the Gulf Council and Harlon's excuse was feigned that Harlon had simply let it slip his mind about adding the Gulf Seafood Institute to his 2013 and 2014 Gulf Council financial statements so it was not purposeful but it was just an oversight on Harlon's part so no problem here, just a mistake, nothing to see here. Not exactly as the minutes will bare out.

    When the new no ethics rules on who can now further wrongly infect the gulf council process were voted on by Harlon Pearce, Perrett and Greene they all voted to get rid of the past rightly put in place rules and let paid lobbyists sit on the SSC, SEP and SAP further corrupting due process and at the same time all three had filed inaccurate and illegal 2013 and 2014 Gulf Council financial statements. All three financial statement violators Pearce, Greene and Perrot voted to do away with the ethical eligibility requirements for the SSC, SAP and SEP that were in place for good reasons.

    The fact that the Gulf Council made the rules on what was ineligible before the council meeting after the vote became eligible because they rescinded those restrictions so they could make a buddy who was ineligible now eligible is about as low life and sleazy as the council can get.

    The correct restrictions were rescinded by the Gulf Council in October 2014 because the Gulf Council knew exactly what I have stated here and that is the SSC, SAP and SEP's were full of unlawfully sitting ineligible members that were unlawfully allowed to be there but should not have been allowed to be there, so instead of kicking them off they just legalized them. The fact stands that those who were ineligible before the rule change still have the status of being ineligible before the rule change even after the rule was sleazily changed to now make what was ineligible now eligible. Must be nice to falsely file and violate your 2013 and 2014 Gulf Council financial statements and have the Council and NOAA look the other way while you violate and not disclose you are all tied up with GSI because you don't want to associate yourself with that seafood institute because it does not look good so let's not put did down.

    Harlon Pearce not filing a proper disclosure statement was no accident and in fact it was intentional. Please pay close attention to what Harlon Pearce says in the posted minutes especially on page 32. In these minutes is found that Harlon himself is my witness to him purposely not filing a correct, accurate and true gulf council financial statement. Harlon Pearce knew all along that he left purposely and intentionally left GSI off his 2013 and 2014 Gulf council financial statements.

    3 voting members of the Gulf Council Pearce, Geene and Perret are on the Board of Directors of the Gulf Seafood Institute and have all directly lobbied Congress for GSI while being voting members of the Gulf Council all the while they were violating their financial statements of interest. All three voted to allow their buddy Bob Gill who at that time was ineligible to be on the SSC but was unlawfully on the SSC and at that time was also on the Board of Directors of the GSI with Pearce, Greene and Perret and that vote lead to their buddy Gill being able to now circumvent his past ineligibility. In effect the three violating amigos Greene, Pearce and Perret helped legalize their buddy Gill where he was ineligible before.

    The council vote on Amendment 40 was 10-7. Three Ocean Conservancy GSI stooges who are voting members on the Gulf Council and who voted for EDF and Ocean Conservancy backed Amendment 40 are none other than Pearce, Perret and Greene. The taxpayers are paying Pearce, Perret and Greene to represent the fair interests of all of their constituents not just the special interest interests of investors using EDF and the Ocean Conservancy to skew the system with investor "funds". At the sane time all three are representing GSI as Board of Directors and lobbying Congress for the interests of the GSI who is back door funded by the Ocean Conservancy and "others". These three are unethically double dipping the taxpayers as voting members of the Gulf council and then they go ahead and represent the special interest of GSI over the fair interest of the taxpayers footing the bill for all of this nonsense.

    Now since Bob Gill was ineligible to be a member of the SSC, SEP or SAP and Bob Gill was allowed to illegally sit on the SSC and SAP by the Gulf Council until the council meeting in October 2014 when his ineligibility was codified by the council as now eligible with confirming votes by Pearce, Perrot and Greene all who were at that time in violation of their own financial statement form law because they inaccurately and falsely filed their 2013 and 2014.


    At a gulf council meeting in October 2014 where Harlon Pearce, Perrot and Greene were present and heard (page 32)Mr. Boyd clearly state on the record minutes: "Okay and so I guess my next question would be if someone makes an application and they disclose that they are on the payroll of a special interest group, whoever they are, that's all that matters at that point, if they're approved, that they disclosed it? Is that correct?"

    Now there is ample evidence from Harlon Pearce in the October 2014 council meeting minutes (page 32)in which Mr. Pearce Gulf Council member and GSI Director lobbyist stated:

    "To be a council member , we just have to have our financial interest report in and we go from there and why should the SSC (my insert -Pearce's GSI Director Buddy Bob Gill GSI Director is on the gulf council SSC and at that time in October 2014 was ineligible to be there and Pearce was going to help him out and make Gill and others sitting ineligibly and make them now eligible) be any different? I think we make a whole lot more decisions at the council than we do at the SSC. " "I mean the SSC does the ABC's and a few other things, but why should we hold them to higher standards or stronger standards, whichever way you want to look at it, than a council member, period, and they council member statement of financial interest is all we do to get on this council and so I'm supportive of this motion."

    Keep in mind that Harlon Pearce stated the above quote at a council meeting in October 2014 several months before the FRA busted him for filing false 2013 and 2014 gulf council financial interest statements.
    Pearce according to his own mouth knew full well in October of 2014 what he had to put down on this 2013 and 2014 financial statement was not left off because of a forgetful memory because the quote shows Pearce knew EXACTLY what he had to disclose but purposefully chose not to disclose it.

    The nondisclosure of Gulf Council members Pearce's, Perrot's and Greene's association as Board of Directors and lobbyists on GSI' s board on their 2013 and 2014 gulf council financial statement was purposeful not a feigned memory loss.

    Until later summer 2012 Bob Gill was a former gulf council voting member who was under strict ethics rules after he was not a voting member of the gulf council he was forbidden to lobby congress for 2 years. Within that 2 year restriction former gulf council voting member and Ocean Conservancy funded GSI Board of Director Bob Gill lobbied for the Ocean Conservancy before Congress in violation of federal ethics restrictions.
    The former Executive Director of the Gulf council Steve Bortone resigned after he was reported to the DOC OIG as being unethical in an EDF scripted gulf council meeting not too long ago. Since EDF needed a new gulf council Executive Director that would go along to get along they got the new Gulf council Executive Director Gregory who during the council meeting in October 2014 obliged EDF and their cronies by on page 31 of said minutes making a recommendation for Option 1.

    Mr. Perret one of the 3 gulf council members that was at that time had filed false and inaccurate 2013 and 2014 gulf council financial statements that were still false at the time this was said (page 31) during the minutes by Mr. Perret: "Does the Executive Director, after this exhaustive search, have a recommendation for the council and, if so, what's your recommendation?"

    Executive Director Gregory: " I could give a recommendation, if so desired."

    Mr. Perret: " I am asking."

    Executive Director Gregory, after what Perret so called an exhaustive search knew that there are many on the SSC, SAP and SEP panels that are at that time ineligible by the rules to be there then placates the political planted ineligible members and EDF and states (page 31): "I recommend Option 1, discontinuing the SSC conflict of interest policy."

    The Mr. Perret, a GSI Board of Director and voting Gulf council member who was at that time out of legal compliance with his gulf council financial statements for 2013 and 2014 then states: "Do you want me to try? I will go along with our Executive Director's recommendation and move for Option 1, discontinue the SSC conflict of interest policy."

    Keep in mind that the three, Perret, Greene and Pearce, all put out inaccurate and unlawful gulf council financial statements in 2013 and 2014 have a buddy Bob Gill and they are all on the GSI Board of Directors and lobby congress. Gill is also on the council paid SSC, Gill at that time was ineligible to sit on the SSC, so the Executive Director Gregory, and the three amigos, Perrot, Greene and Pearce went ahead with the unethical scheme to make the EDF political plants on the SSC, SEP and SAP now eligible, but that was not retroactive and so the violations that made the ineligible before they were made eligible still stand.

    Now since ineligibly sitting on the SSC is a violation of a federal fishing regulation law those that were in retroactive ineligible violation before they were made eligible would be still be ineligible if a judge who was asked for declaratory judgment said they violated the ineligibility law when it was in effect. "Persons are ineligible for membership on any committee or panel if that person has been convicted of a felony offense or is determined to have violated any federal or state marine resource law or regulation within the previous five years."

    So what we have here is Perret who was out of financial statement compliance in 2013 and 2014 in October of 2014 makes a motion to remove the SSC conflict of interest policy and his buddy Pearce who was also illegally out of compliance with his 2013 and 2014 financial statement then seconds the motion, thereby now making their good buddy GSI Director Bob Gill now eligible for the SSC.

    Removing the conflict of interest policy that was put there for good ethical reasons to help your buddy on the Gulf Council SSC Bob Gill GSI Director is not going to look good public relations wise when it's posted on a completely legal GSI parody website. And how convenient it is that now the SSC members like Bob Gill nicely paid by the taxpayers and get hotel, meal and travel expenses all the while they are really working for the special interests of the OC and GSI.

    Bob Gill lobbied Congress for the Ocean Conservancy within 2 years of being a voting council member and that is a violation of a federal fishery regulation. Perret, Pearce and Greene while sitting members of the gulf council also lobbied congress for their special interest Gulf Seafood Institute all the while the taxpayers are paying their gulf council salary and benefits. Taxpayers get testy when they know they are being double dipped by those who are really lobbyists for special interest groups.

    Now again on page 32 of the minutes, Pearce, Greene and Perret were fully aware in October 2014 that their 2013 and 2014 gulf council financial statements were inaccurate and illegally filed because they sat right at this meeting and heard Mr. Boyd state on the record:

    Mr. Boyd: "Okay and so I guess my next question would be if someone makes and application and they disclose that they are on the payroll of a special interest group, whoever they are, that's all that matters at that point, if they're approved, that they disclosed it? Is that correct?"

    Executive Director Gregory: "Correct."

    Perret, Greene and Pearce were fully aware that they had to list GSI on their 2013 and 2014 financial statements but purposefully chose not to list GSI on their financial statements when this recorded conversation shows they were fully aware of what they had to list on their financial statements.

    In view of the facts and the minutes of the October 2014 gulf council meeting, Pearce, Greene and Perret cannot use the feigned excuse in 2015 that they forgot to add GSI onto their past financial statements because back in October 2014 when they had plenty of time to amend their false and inaccurate 2013 and 2014 financial statements because they knew from this discussion that they had to list GSI on their 2013 and 2014 financial statements but intentionally did not for some obvious and some not obvious reasons.

    Since these ineligibility counts are tied in with the corruption that is gulf council systemic I suggest that the CCA and the FRA file amended suits and add these counts to their lawsuits so the attending judge can declaratory judgement rule on these retroactive ineligibility issues and he will get a better idea of just how then Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Ocean Conservancy (OC) and Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) and others have hijacked the taxpayers fair interests as regards Amendment 40.

    www.GSIdeception.info

    Congress-Meet_l.jpg

    GSI board members David Krebs (l-r), Gill, Johnny Greene and Harlon Pearce meet with a staff member of Congressman Cedric Richmond (D-LA). Photo: Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Notice that 2 folks on this list have a history of fishery violations

    Capt. Michael Jennings, President
    Capt. Mike Colby, Vice-president
    Susan Boggs, Secretary
    Capt. Michael Miglini, Treasurer
    Capt. Billy Archer
    Capt. Cliff Cox
    Capt. Steve Tomeny
    Capt. Shane Cantrell, Executive Director
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    From the Gulf Council website:

    "Persons are ineligible for membership on any committee or panel if that person has been convicted of a felony offense or is determined to have violated any federal or state marine resource law or regulation within the previous five years."
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    Mike Jennings violated fisheries laws last year when he not only allowed his customers to keep a triggerfish out of season. He posted photos of it on the internet. He ended up paying a $200 fine I believe.
    Jennings is on the list of 4 people to be considered to be a Gulf Councilmember.
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    From the Gulf Council Chairman Kevin Anson's mouth: "Knowingly and willfully submitting false information to the council is a violation of federal law."

    From the evidence provided in the October 2014 council meeting minutes, Pearce, Perret and Greene knowingly and willfully submitted false information to the council when they submitted to the council false and inaccurate 2013 and 2014 financial statements and purposely did not amend those financial statements until they were publicly busted by the FRA in 2015.

    "Persons are ineligible for membership on any committee or panel if that person has been convicted of a felony offense or is determined to have violated any federal or state marine resource law or regulation within the previous five years."

    Because of that clear violation Pearce, Perret and Greene are ineligible to sit on the Gulf Council.

    As I suggested before, the CCA and the FRA should add these rightful counts to their current lawsuits and ask the judge for a declaratory judgement on their ineligibility due to them willfully filing and submitting to the council false financial statements.

    Don't let Crabtree, NOAA or the DOC OIG be the final arbitrator on the ineligibility issues that the gulf council has, CCA and FRA please add these counts to your already filed suit and let the judge decide. This will bolster your case.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,572 Captain
    "Knowingly and willfully submitting false information to the council is a violation of federal law." has already been shown to be nothing more than window dressing to cover their rear ends. When provided clear evidence of such, the NMFS and their attorneys decided not to pursue.
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 483 Deckhand
    We know that NOAA, the gulf council, crabtree or the DOC OIG will not act to make those who violated the law accountable so that is why it is important for CCA and the FRA to add these counts with accompanying facts to their lawsuits and have a federal judge decide these federal violation issues that the gulf council, crabtree, NOAA and the DOC OIG wrongfully and unethically refuse to address. Of course a separate lawsuit could be filed but since the CCA and the FRA already have a filed and paid for federal cause of action it would bolster their cases to add these counts and have the judge issue a Declaratory Judgement.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    We know that NOAA, the gulf council, crabtree or the DOC OIG will not act to make those who violated the law accountable so that is why it is important for CCA and the FRA to add these counts with accompanying facts to their lawsuits and have a federal judge decide these federal violation issues that the gulf council, crabtree, NOAA and the DOC OIG wrongfully and unethically refuse to address. Of course a separate lawsuit could be filed but since the CCA and the FRA already have a filed and paid for federal cause of action it would bolster their cases to add these counts and have the judge issue a Declaratory Judgement.

    anyone got a link to the CCA lawsuit (not the press release...... the actual filed lawsuit)? I thought FRA was just soliciting contributions to see if they could afford a lawsuit. So, what happens to your contribution if that fella doesn't get his 60K? you think he's gonna give it back to you? just curious.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand

    Thanks, but that is just a link to the filing info. You have to be registered at that site to get more info. I was hoping it was posted publicly somewhere.
2»

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file