Law

BOSTON — September 6, 2012 — New England's largest fishing ports said Wednesday that regulators ignored congressional intent when they installed fishing rules that are crushing local fleets.

An attorney for the ports of Gloucester and New Bedford, and lawyers for local fishermen and associations, told the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that regulators bypassed safeguards in fishery law aimed at protecting smaller fishing businesses from being swallowed by wealthier interests.

"One of the primary concerns is the preservation of the small-business model that we've had for 375 years," said Steve Ouellette, who represented the New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association in a lawsuit seeking the safeguards.

The ports argued the court should order a lower court judge to oversee the implementation of the safeguards. That could effectively kill the overhaul because one of the measures requires fishermen to approve the rule changes by a two-thirds vote.

Department of Justice attorney Joan Pepin, who represented federal fishing regulators, argued the 2010 rules were properly installed after months of public debate. The fishing industry's current struggles far predate the new rules, which are intended to help fishermen survive cuts in catch limits everyone knew were coming because key species are in poor shape, she said.

Fishermen absorbed big cuts this year and face huge cuts next year, including 70 percent reductions in cod. Any court decision won't affect those cuts.

Peter Shelley, senior counsel of the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened on behalf of the government, warned the judges the fishermen represented in the room didn't speak for how all fishermen feel about the new rules, which he said enjoy broad support. "No one is in love with the program but the alternative would be far worse," he said.

 

Read the full story by Jay Lindsay of the Associated Press at the New Bedford Standard Times.

 

 

BOSTON — September 6, 2012 — Lawyers for the region’s co-capitals of the fishing industry, New Bedford and Gloucester, Wednesday urged the First U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston to direct a federal district court judge to assert control over what was described as the rampant consolidation of the groundfishery that risks destroying cultures linked to a way of life older than the nation itself.

The lead attorney for the cities and other fishing interests, James F. Kavanaugh Jr., told the three-judge panel that commodity trading of groundfish allocations – through the system known as catch shares – among members of fishing cooperatives known as sectors was introduced improperly and illegally in 2010 by denying the groundfishermen their statutory right to vote on the radical transformation of their industry.

But Kavanaugh said his clients – along with the region’s major fishing ports, dozens of fishing businesses, associations and individuals from New Hampshire to North Carolina — do not seek to have the catch share regimen halted or declared illegal.

In response to Chief Justice Sandra L. Lynch’s question — “Are you asking that the program be stopped in its tracks?” — Kavanaugh said, “No, that’s too draconian.”

He went on to explain that the plaintiffs want the Court of Appeals to remand the case back to U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel, and for her to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to administer the regimen correctly, as Congress intended, with safeguards against economic destabilization and social dislocation.

Those safeguards hang on whether the sector system is defined to be a Limited Access Privileged Program or Individual Fishing Quotas — a dicey definition, even Judge Lynch acknowledged — that would include a referendum approval by two thirds of the affected fishermen. Judge Zobel had rejected that definition of the sector program last year, prompting the appeal, which contends the system is a limited access program because participants are limited in what they can catch and trade it.

Joan M. Pepin, attorney for the NOAA, and Peter Shelley, speaking for the Conservation Law Foundation, argued that a “poison pill” — essentially a way to prevent corporate misdeeds — was designed into the catch share system crafted by the New England Fishery Management Council and adopted and put into effect in May 2010 by NOAA.

It was not an LAPP or an IFQ because of the separation of powers, she argued; the sector fishing cooperatives had set the quotas, but the permitholders harvested the catch.

In addition, Pepin argued that the sector catch share system did not involve a permanent allocation of risk disfiguring the fishery, because unlike an LAPP or an IFQ, it could be voted out of existence by the New England Fishery Management Council. Moreover, she noted, the council had already addressed the potential problems of catch share trading by producing a fishery dominated by a small number of well-capitalized businesses.

Chief Judge Lynch and Judge Michael Boundin interjected probing questions.

“Why would Congress have concerns about individual permits,” Boundin asked, almost rhetorically, “but not be concerned about permits that are pooled?”

Lynch, meanwhile, asked the defendants why there were so many plaintiffs asking the court to act to stop rampant consolidation if the government was already addressing the problem.

Shelley, at the table with Pepin, argued that the catch share regimen was widely popular, citing the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen, who pioneered the sector concept in 2003.

Chief Judge Lynch ended the hour of oral arguments with the statement that “we are well aware of the importance of this case.”

Now, after the oral arguments spiced with dialogue between the lawyers and judges, the court will begin the private exercise of putting the briefs and arguments into the legal framework. It will use analysis of the clerks who sat along both sides of the courtroom taking copious notes, and finally the workproduct will go to the panel for its deliberations.

 

Read the full story in the Gloucester Times 

 

 

BOSTON (AP) — New England’s largest fishing ports said Wednesday that regulators ignored congressional intent when they installed fishing rules the ports complain are crushing local fleets.

An attorney for the ports of Gloucester and New Bedford, along with lawyers for local fishermen and associations, told the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that regulators bypassed safeguards in fishery law aimed at protecting smaller fishing businesses from being swallowed by wealthier interests.

‘‘One of the primary concerns is the preservation of the small business model that we've had for 375 years,’’ said attorney Steve Ouellette, who represented the New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen’s Association in a lawsuit seeking the safeguards.

The ports argued the court should order a lower court judge to oversee the implementation of the safeguards. That could effectively kill the overhaul because one of the measures requires fishermen to approve the rule changes by a two-thirds vote.

In June 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Rya Zobel rejected all of the plaintiffs’ arguments against the new sectors system.

On Wednesday, the attorney for the ports, James Kavanaugh, focused on an argument that the judge called a ‘‘close call’’ in her decision — whether the catch allotments given to fishermen amounted to an ‘‘individual fishing quota.’’ He said it was ‘‘unambiguous’’ that they were.

And under the law, he said, that type of quota can’t be installed without the various safeguards to prevent fleet consolidation, such as the fishermen’s referendum and steps to limit any costs.

But Pepin said the allotments aren’t individual fishing quotas because they didn’t give any fishermen an exclusive right to a certain amount of fish. They’re basically used so fishermen know how much catch they bring into a sector, she said.

‘‘It is not an individual quota,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s a piece of data.’’

The court gave no timeline for a decision.

 

Read the AP story by Jay Lindsay in the Boston Globe

BOSTON, Mass. — September 5, 2012 — New Bedford’s fishing lawsuit against the federal government is being weighed by a three-judge panel after arguments today in federal appeals court.

The lawsuit, brought by the cities’ of New Bedford, Gloucester and fishing industry groups, was dismissed by by Judge Rya Zobel on all counts in June of 2011, and the decision to appeal led to this morning’s presentation at the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

James F. Kavanaugh Jr. and Stephen Ouellette argued the case for New Bedford and Gloucester fishing interests, while Peter Shelley, senior counsel for the Conservation Law Foundation, and Justice Department counsel Joan Pepin were among the lawyers presenting the case for the federal government.

Arguments hinge on the narrow legal definition of a fishing term associated with the so-called sector management system, and whether a referendum was required before the introduction of catch shares. Under the catch share system, fishermen form cooperatives to distribute their allotments of various species of groundfish among member boats.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times.

 

 

GLOUCESTER, Mass. — September 5, 2012 — A three-judge panel of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston is due to hear arguments today in a suit alleging the federal government’s re-engineering of the Northeast groundfishery into a quasi commodity market trading in catch shares beginning in 2010 was illegally introduced by denying industry the referendum promised by federal law.

Led by the cities of New Bedford and Gloucester — and including industry groups and fishermen as far away as North Carolina — the plaintiffs filed suit immediately after the catch share system took effect, arguing the approach, pushed by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, met the statutory definition of a limited-access program with individual fishing quota.

The 2006 re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act included a provision insuring that industries not be drawn unwillingly into so-called LAPPS or IFQs, which use formulas to distribute catching rights — or catch shares — among fishermen and fishing companies who trade, lease, buy and sell among themselves while the dispossessed or marginalized in the allocation of the fishery disappear.

NOAA insists in its response that what it created for New England was a system that allowed fishermen to continue working the old way, if they wished, obviating the need for referendum.

Magnuson-Stevens requires a two-thirds majority vote of permit-holders within the existing fishery to unlock the gears that can transform traditional fisheries into catch share formats.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times.

 

 

WHAT: Oral arguments in the appeal of the lawsuit filed by the cities of New Bedford and Gloucester vs NOAA

WHEN: Wednesday, September 5, 2012. Oral arguments begin at 9:30 a.m.  This case is 4th on the docket, but cases may be called at any time.

WHERE: John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, Clerk's Office Phone Number (617) 748-9057

WHO: Court proceedings are open to Media and the General Public

The following was released by the office of New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass – September 4, 2012 – Oral arguments in the appeal of the lawsuit filed by the Cities of New Bedford and Gloucester, and a number of East Coast fishing industry interests will challenge Amendment 16, the framework for the federal government’s fisheries catch share system, in oral arguments scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston tomorrow, Wednesday, September 5, 2012.  The plaintiffs allege that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ignored important procedural and substantive provisions of law enacted by Congress to protect traditional fishing communities and to shield small businesses from arbitrary acts by the agency.

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell, who testified before the New England Fisheries Management Council’s Scientific & Statistical Committee in Boston just two weeks ago, will also attend the oral argument.

Gloucester and New Bedford will be represented in the oral arguments by experienced advocates Attorney James F. Kavanaugh, Jr. and Attorney Eldon Greenberg.

Attorney Kavanaugh, originally from New Bedford, is a partner at Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford in Boston.  He is a trial lawyer with extensive experience in both state and federal courts.  Mr. Kavanaugh has been regularly selected as a "Massachusetts Super Lawyer" as well as a "New England Super Lawyer."  In addition, he was selected as one of the "Top 100 Massachusetts Super Lawyers" and one of the "Top 100 New England Super Lawyers" by Law & Politics and the publishers of Boston Magazine for 2008.  Mr. Kavanaugh has also received an AV Peer Review Rating, the highest rating, in The Martindale-Hubbell Lawyers Directory.

Attorney Greenberg served as general counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and as deputy general counsel of the Agency for International Development during President Jimmy Carter’s administration.  Mr. Greenberg has an extensive litigation and agency practice on behalf of natural resource clients.   He has represented commercial fisheries trade associations, seafood harvesting and processing companies, and fisheries research and development foundations. 

Read more about the case at the following links:

Judge Zobel Rules Against New Bedford and Gloucester on All Counts

Senator Kerry calls Zobel ruling "disappointing"; expresses hope it will be "appealed and reversed"

New Bedford and Gloucester to Appeal Judge Zobel's Ruling on Amendment 16

New Bedford, fishing interests appeal ruling in suit

New Bedford and Gloucester to Federal Court: The government has forfeited the presumption that it acted within the law

 

August 24, 2012 — Measuring fish aboard a factory trawler isn’t a simple task. “If you put a land scale out at sea, the motion of the vessel – or the motion in the ocean – would keep the scale from reading correctly, and you wouldn’t be able to settle on a weight,” says Jennifer Waston, who works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Watson specializes in catch accounting, and she says that keeping track of all the fish that’s caught and processed on the Bering Sea involves sensitive machinery that’s recalibrated constantly. The flow scales look like fancy conveyor belts, and are able to weigh thousands of pounds of fish every day.

But even though this gear is very sophisticated, it can still be manipulated. Just like any scale on land can be tipped to bring its owner a little extra profit.

“The perfect example would be the butcher weighing your meat and putting his thumb on the scale,” says Watson.

American Seafoods stands accused of committing the fisherman’s version of that offense. Instead of selling less for more, the company is charged with taking more fish than they were documenting.

NOAA filed a notice against the company in January, alleging that in 2007 and 2008, its vessel American Dynasty committed 39 violations of the Magnuson Stevens Act. The charges range from falsifying scale test reports to preventing an independent fisheries observer from doing her job. The agency proposes a penalty of $637,000 levied against American Seafoods, the American Dynasty, and its skipper Ole Knotten.

The investigation was first reported by Wesley Loy on his Deckboss blog. According to documents subsequently obtained by KUCB, NOAA alleges that the American Dynasty supplied inaccurate weight information for 65 of its 200 hauls during the 2007 pollock A season. The documents also detail numerous instances of the American Dynasty’s flow scale weighing anywhere from 7 to 70 percent light, which could allow the vessel to process more fish than federal regulation permits.

NOAA also accuses the crew of interfering with the work of its fisheries observer, whose job it is to make sure that all of the catch data is accurate. The document describes instances where an observer was told that fish processing would start at a scheduled time, only for her to find that it had begun more than an hour early.

While American Seafoods declined an interview for this story, attorney Matthew Latimer stated in an email that the company “disputes the allegations” and is “vigorously defending itself in this matter.”

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel also declined to comment on pending legal matters, but did confirm that a hearing before an administrative law judge is planned and that the case is currently in the discovery phase. The exact date of the hearing has not been announced.

 

Read the full story on Alaska Public 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — August 14, 2012 — Nearly 14 years after his scallop boat was boarded by the Coast Guard at sea, Larry M. Yacubian is suing the federal government for malicious prosecution that ran him out of business and ruined him financially.

Yacubian has filed suit in federal court seeking unspecified damages and expenses for abuse of process and malicious prosecution.

"I was banished to the gulag. I couldn't work again in a profession that I had been in for years," Yacubian told The Associated Press in an interview Monday.

The suit was filed after the Commerce Department allowed the clock to run out on the former Westport fisherman's $15 million administrative claim filed six months ago, thereby dismissing it.

It's the latest chapter in a legal saga that has left Yacubian — for allegedly fishing in a closed area and making a false statement — forbidden from commercial fishing anywhere, without a boat, and without the Westport farmhouse that was in his wife's family for generations.

Yacubian's case is at the center of the continuing saga of the well-documented renegade prosecution in the Northeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Yacubian's plight has gradually unfolded in public over the past two or three years, culminating in a Commerce Department's special master declaring in 2011 that Yacubian had been punished all out of proportion to any offense he may have committed.

His lawsuit also contends a government enforcement officer's evidence helpful to him at trial was kept out of court through coercion by the New England enforcement office.

Twice the government also blocked the sale of his boat and his permit so he could pay his legal bills, ruining Yacubian financially. Yacubian says he was thereby coerced into a settlement by the government.

Two spokespersons for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

Yacubian's case was hailed at the time as the first successful prosecution of a fisherman based solely on the then-new Boattrax system. (Boattrax is the first satellite-based tracking system, following boats via transponders fitted to each one.)

 

Read the full story in the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

BOSTON — August 13, 2012 — A former New Bedford scalloper who was driven out of business by what an independent investigator called regulators' excessive and unfair penalties is suing the federal government.

Larry Yacubian's lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for lost wages, lost property and emotional damages. In a claim earlier this year, rejected by federal agencies, he asked for $15 million.

Yacubian was refunded $400,000 in fines in 2011 and received letters of apology from top federal officials. But in an interview Monday he said that didn't make up for a malicious and abusive prosecution that destroyed his life's work.

"I was banished to the gulag. I couldn't work again in a profession that I had been in for years," Yacubian said in an interview Monday.

Yacubian's case was among several considered by special investigator Charles Swartwood, who was appointed in 2010 by former U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

Swartwood's appointment came after National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco ordered a review by the Commerce department's inspector general. Her request followed years of complaints by Northeast fishermen about unfair treatment from the attorneys and officers who enforce the nation's fishery laws. The complicated laws govern, among other things, where fishermen can fish and how much they can catch.

The inspector general's review said abusive treatment wasn't widespread, but flagged several penalties for further investigation, including Yacubian's.

Yacubian owned a 95-foot scallop boat and was active in the Fisheries Survival Fund, an industry group that helped devise a management plan that rotates the opening and closing of certain fishing areas. The strategy revitalized the scallop stock, now the Northeast's most lucrative.

In 1998, Yacubian was fined after he was accused by fishery police of fishing in a closed area and for allegedly lying about his catch. He denied the charges, but by 2000, his right to fish had been permanently revoked.

He tried to sell his boat and fishing permits twice in coming years, but enforcement officers blocked the sale, saying Yacubian didn't have the right to sell them. In 2004, a federal judge vacated the penalties against Yacubian, but law enforcement officials essentially ignored the order, according to Swartwood's report.

In June 2005, Yacubian agreed to pay $430,000 to settle the case, but Swartwood ruled that decision had come only after Yacubian was so financially desperate that his wife had to sell a family farm in Westport. Yacubian now lives in Florida, where he works on tour boats.

Swartwood concluded "money was NOAA's motivating objective in this case," though an email he referred to as evidence was redacted in his report.

 

Read the full story by the Associated Press on CBS News

 

 

August 13, 2012 — Captain Larry Yacubian, a former New Bedford, Massachusetts fishermen who lost his business, his boat, his license to fish – and literally the family farm – as a result of a Federal prosecution  described by the United States Secretary of Commerce as having "overstepped the bounds of propriety and fairness…" is seeking to hold the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) accountable for its actions in a recently filed lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. "By forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, I hope to deter the agency from continuing its egregious conduct and to remedy the harm NOAA has done to my family and me," said Captain Yacubian.

 For background on NOAA's mistreatment of Capt. Yacubian, see this video from 'Dan Rather Reports'

 For background on the NOAA enforcement scandal, see this video from CBS Evening News with Katie Couric

The public filing of the lawsuit follows the denial of Captain Yacubian's administrative claim. The Department of Commerce took the full sixth months allowed to consider the claim (after six months the claim was automatically deemed denied).

Members of Congress React

"Larry Yacubian lost his home and business because NOAA abused their power and was more motivated by money than justice," said Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.). "Rather than come clean about the enforcement managers and attorneys who broke the public trust, NOAA has kept important documents secret. I have and will continue to push for answers.  NOAA's outrageous conduct in this case continues today with Dr. Lubchenco's refusal to release all relevant information about NOAA's actions against Mr. Yacubian."

"It is an embarrassment to the U.S. government that Larry Yacubian has to return to the legal system to receive fair compensation," said Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "His case was cited by the Department of Commerce's Inspector General and Judge Swartwood as the quintessential example of mistreatment by NOAA Law Enforcement.  While the government apologized and returned the fines to fishermen that were harmed that figure fell well short of covering their legal fees and lost earnings. The government admitted it did Mr. Yacubian and others harm, now it should provide restitution."

"Mr. Yacubian's case underscores the detrimental effects that mistreatment by NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement has had on our local fishermen. It is ridiculous that Mr. Yacubian is still being forced to fight for fair compensation, and he is right to pursue all possible measures for recourse," Congressman John Tierney (D-Mass.) said.

"The first step toward righting the unjust penalties and fines incurred by Massachusetts fishermen at the hands of poor leadership by the Commerce Department was the remittance of those penalties to some of the businesses and fishermen, like Captain Yacubian, who were treated unlawfully," said Congressman Bill Keating (D-Mass.). "It is unacceptable that, over one year later, many of these same individuals are still fighting for restitution."

Wrongdoing at NOAA

The lawsuit comes on the heels of the first investigation and report of Special Master Charles B. Swartwood, III, which found "overzealous, abusive or arbitrary conduct by NOAA personnel which unfairly impacted the outcome of several of the reviewed cases," including Captain Yacubian's.  The conduct stemmed from "a lack of supervision, oversight, and standards in the work of NOAA law enforcement." 

An investigation of NOAA uncovered not only abuses in the prosecutorial process, but also in the use of fines paid by fishermen into NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund.  The Commerce Department Inspector General found that these funds were used to purchase "luxurious" undercover vessels, buy 202 vehicles for a staff of 172, and take trips around the world.  After a June 2011 Senate hearing, Senator Scott Brown observed that "These enforcement officials went on a spending spree funded by the hardworking fishermen."

A second report by Special Master Swartwood "may contain crucial additional information about victims of abuse and injustice at the hands of NOAA Law Enforcement personnel," according to a letter sent to NOAA by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). The second Swartwood Report was submitted to Commerce Secretary John Bryson in April 2012. Both Senator Kerry and Senator Brown have written to NOAA, repeatedly asking when this second report will be released.  NOAA has not responded.

Facts of Captain Yacubian's Case

(for additional detail please see the complaint filed in Federal court)

On June 14, 2000, NOAA Enforcement Attorney Charles Juliand issued a Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA) and a Notice of Permit Sanction (NOPS). The NOVA accused Captain Yacubian of fishing in a restricted area and making a false statement.  Special Master Swartwood found that there is "credible evidence that money was NOAA's motivating objective" for prosecuting Captain Yacubian.

In response, Captain Yacubian requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and began to marshal evidence in his defense. A key issue in the case was the reliability of plotting data from a system known as Boatracs, which was used to track Captain Yacubian in the restricted area. Seeking to prove that the system was unreliable, Captain Yacubian's counsel asked Massachusetts Environmental Police Officer, Captain Peter Hanlon, to take pictures of two vessels, the Theresa R II (which had no engine) and the Kathy Marie, both of which were secured to the north end of the State Pier in New Bedford, Massachusetts, but were plotted by Boatracs at a point that was 1.5 miles from their actual location.

But Officer Hanlon never testified in Captain Yacubian's case because, according to the Swartwood Report, the Special Agent in Charge at NOAA "put enough pressure on Captain Hanlon to request that he be excused from testifying."  Had Captain Hanlon testified, his "testimony and documentation could have challenged [the reliability of the Boatracs systems.]" Without this testimony, Captain Yacubian lost his case before the ALJ. 

A series of appeals culminated for Captain Yacubian in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. There, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton vacated the ALJ's finding of a false statement by Captain Yacubian due to a lack of evidence and vacated all penalties assessed as excessive. The case was remanded to NOAA, where a new ALJ, Parlen McKenna, reinstated the false statements charge, "completely ignor[ing] the District Court Judgment," according to Special Master Swartwood. ALJ McKenna, one month later, attended a workshop in Kuala Lumpur with the NOAA prosecuting attorneys, Charles Juliand and Mitch MacDonald.  According to Special Master Swartwood, this "presented an actual conflict of interest," or, at the least, "created the appearance of a conflict."

In order to pay his mounting legal fees, Captain Yacubian attempted to sell his boat. But NOAA Enforcement Attorney Charles Juliand repeatedly blocked the sale. Ultimately, Captain Yacubian's wife was instead forced to sell her family farm in Westport, Massachusetts – a farm that had been in her family for generations. But even this was not enough. Captain Yacubian could not have his case heard in Federal court again until he repeated the same legal battles before NOAA, incurring the same legal fees. 

As Special Master Swartwood explained, with Captain Yacubian out of resources, the agency "coerced a settlement with Lawrence M. Yacubian by refusing to adhere to Judge Gorton's order and by seeking and relying on a questionable ruling by ALJ McKenna."  The settlement was oppressive, securing a civil penalty far greater than that initially assessed and revoking Captain Yacubian's operator permit, preventing him from returning to his career as a fisherman. 

Legal Representation

The law firms of Burns & Levinson, LLP in Boston, and Hunton & Williams, LLP in Washington, DC are representing Captain Yacubian in this case.

Captain Yacubian is available to members of the press for brief interviews. 
As the subject of discussion is a pending lawsuit, the scope of the interview must be limited to his reactions to the filing of the lawsuit.

Contact:

Robert B. Vanasse
202-333-2628
bob@savingseafood.org

Related Documents

Secretary of Commerce's Decision Memorandum following the Swartwood Report

Yacubian's Federal court complaint

The first Swartwood Report

The Inspector General's Report showing misuse of Asset Forfeiture Funds

AP coverage of June 2011 Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee hearing

Letter from Senator John Kerry to NOAA inquiring about second Swartwood report

Letter from Sen. Scott Brown to Sec. of Commerce Bryson inquiring about second Swartwood report

Letter from Senator Scott Brown to Acting Secretary of Commerce Blank inquiring about second Swartwood report