Consider this one of the fishiest Sarbanes-Oxley suits in the history of the law: an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is urging the justices to weigh in on whether shredding fish is comparable to shredding documents, as both were used to hide violations of federal law, according to Forbes. Read more here One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish — Equals A Sarbox Felony? Read the Forbes article here 08:29
NILS STOLPE: The New England groundfish debacle (Part IV): Is cutting back harvest really the answer?
While it’s a fact that’s hardly ever acknowledged, the assumption in fisheries management is that if the population of a stock of fish isn’t at some arbitrary level, it’s because of too much fishing. Hence the term “overfished.” Hence the mandated knee jerk reaction of the fisheries managers to not enough fish; cut back on fishing. What of other factors? They don’t count. It’s all about fishing, because fishing is all that the managers can control; it’s their Maslow’s Hammer. When it comes to the oceans it seems as if it’s about all that the industry connected mega-foundations that support the anti-fishing ENGOs with hundreds of millions of dollars a year in “donations” are interested in controlling. Read the article here
Did they bring in Dale Jones as an expert witness? Well actually he’d have to take the Fifth. As far as his shredding went with Paper fine. Yet this is the Internet Era and his shredding was an act of futility as Servers do not Shred be it through a Hard-Drive or Network Server. The same would apply to any Hard-Drive that received the information. Replaced P.Cs or Servers replaced during this Period could reveal a conspiracy. More than likely there’s a Trail out there still.