If the GW did do something wrong, they would just quietly "retire" him. Isn't that how it works?

... On February 7, 2005, John Raley sued James Allen Main, in his capacity as finance director of the State of Alabama; Troy King, in his capacity as the attorney 572*572 general of the State of Alabama; the State of Alabama General Liability Trust Fund ("the Fund"); and the State of Alabama (these defendants are collectively hereinafter referred to as "the State defendants"). He also named as a defendant Joyce Sharpley, in her capacity as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, James Sharpley. Raley sought a judgment declaring whether the State defendants were obligated to provide him a defense and indemnification in an action brought by Sharpley against him in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division. The State defendants answered the complaint asserting certain affirmative defenses and generally denying that they were obligated to defend or indemnify Raley in the federal litigation...


... The State defendants initially chose to defend Raley in the federal action under a reservation of rights. However, after Raley was convicted of manslaughter, he was excluded from coverage by the Fund based on the criminal-acts exclusion in the Fund guidelines. Once the coverage issue was resolved against Raley, the State defendants were no longer obligated to defend Raley based on their reservation to provide a defense "only until the matter of coverage [could] be resolved" and "to withdraw from the defense ... at a later date." Further, we cannot say that the State defendants acted beyond the discretion afforded by section 5 in refusing to defend Raley, because he had been excluded from coverage by the Fund based on the criminal-acts exclusion. Raley cites Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Youngblood, 549 So.2d 76 (Ala.1989), and argues that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Youngblood, however, is distinguishable from this case in that Youngblood deals with an insurer's duty to defend its insured, whereas here we have already determined that an insurer/insured relationship does not exist between Raley and the Fund. Accordingly, we conclude that the State defendants do not owe Raley a duty to defend him in the federal litigation brought by Sharpley...

... Daniel filed an action against Hodges, a game warden, for false imprisonment (two counts) and malicious prosecution (two counts) claiming $1,000 damages. He joined as defendant Western Casualty and Surety Company, surety on Hodges' bond. Code 1940, T. 41, §§ 50, 51 and 115, as amended.

This appeal is from a judgment in Hodges' favor based on a verdict directed (with hypothesis) by the trial judge...

... We consider, however, that the expression "and shall arrest without warrant * * * any person violating any of * * the game * * * laws" incorporates by reference the provisions of Code 1940, T. 15, § 154, which provides as follows:

"An officer may also arrest any person, without warrant, on any day and at any time, for any public offense committed, or a breach of the peace threatened in his presence; or when a felony has been committed, though not in his presence, by the person arrested, or when a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it; or when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony, although it may afterwards appear that a felony had not in fact been committed; or on a charge made, upon reasonable cause, that the person arrested has committed a felony."

Hunting on another person's land in the day time without his permission is a misdemeanor. Since Hodges arrested Daniel without a warrant and without the offense being committed in his presence, his restraint of Daniel's liberty made a prima facie cause of action. Accordingly, the affirmative charge should not have been given as to the counts of the complaint charging Hodges with unlawful imprisonment.

The judgment below is due to be reversed and the cause there remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Well after reading around I determined it would be best to remove the rocks so that there would be no doubt I was legal.

This past Sunday I went to retrive my camera that I have had up all summer over looking a feeder and some trophy rocks. I was up there two weeks ago planting a field and I removed all the corn that was left in the feeder but did not remove the trophy rocks . Well after reading around I determined it would be best to remove the rocks so that there would be no doubt I was legal. Which is what I did sunday also. I know it has to be gone for 10 days so i wanted to get my 10 days started so I can hunt . Well two weeks ago while planting I opened the camera case to see how many pictures were on the camera and there were a few but decided to leave it out a while longer to get more. So this past Sunday around 2'oclock I go to get the camera and when I open it up there is only 1 picture on the card. I also noticed my gate was not chained back the way I always chain it when I first arrived. Game wardens frequent the area and I bet you money the warden took my card to see if we had been putting any corn in the feeder, but other than just putting the card back in the camera he wiped it clean. The one picture that was on the card was taken at 9:00 am that same Sunday. Now I may be just speculating but the only way to remove pitures on my camera is to remove the card and use a digital camera, laptop, etc., and after reading the main post on this topic it sure does seem like the same scenario.

Do you see how two-faced the DCNR's policies on baiting are?

They give people permits to violate the very same laws and rules that they waste so much time on when hunting season comes in. They tell you that you can hunt game animals over bait one day, and the next day it becomes a serious crime with stiff fines and possible jail time involved.

The law prohibits hunting over both corn and salt, but they say salt is OK all the time while saying corn is only OK when they say it is and give you a permit to sign saying you will obey all laws while you break the law and hunt over corn or trap game animals with it.

This game of "gotcha" needs to end and they need to get back to taking care of conservation and protecting game and fish like they are supposed to be doing.

I've never hunted over bait, and I wouldn't if the law was changed to allow it. I still think the law should be repealed to put an end to the corruption in the DNCR's enforcement policies and the injustice well meaning hunters are suffering because of it.

Trash the law and end this whole mess.

Doesn't mean a game warden should be doing that to someone's camera card, or even messing with it.

(Acts 1935, No. 240, p. 632, §14; Code 1940, T. 8, §19.)

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §2601; Acts 1983, No. 83-742, p. 1222.)

This is the statement in the law that covers just about anything he wants to do, it's called CYA (cover your ass).

(8) To perform such other additional duties as the commissioner may direct.

As assistant Fire Marshall at work we have a clause that deals with interpretation and its called AHJ (authority having jurisdiction)basically it means we get to interpret the vague aspects of the law.

Just remember their always right.Judge is buddy more than likely prob have lunch together and laugh about what they do to people.All it would take is a handful of corn to make you have a bad day.I figure he was checking your feeders out then saw the camera. Stole your card not wanting his picture taken. He realized he was caught red handed and came up with that story.The only way I'd try to take any futher would be if he was a total jerk etc.