Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears libel in rem over oysters as attorneys debate ‘sustenance’ and commercial fishing
Summary
In 24P0507 the panel considered whether mussel/oyster forfeiture (a libel in rem) can be defended by asserted Aboriginal/sustenance rights and whether the facts show commercial activity; the record includes disputed facts about harvest location, dealer handling, and a $480 check tied to 1,600 oysters.
The panel considered 24P0507, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Pockney, an in‑rem libel proceeding concerning oysters seized by environmental police, and debated whether the defendant’s asserted tribal/aboriginal “sustenance” rights or his conduct as a licensed commercial fisherman controlled the outcome.
Appellant counsel Jeffrey Loeb argued that the word “sustenance,” historically used in references to Aboriginal harvesting rights, should not be read narrowly and that the statutory and historical record…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
