It's findings have been shown to be preposterously one-sided.

Yet the U.S. General Accounting Office has issued a report somehow finding that the Coast Guard's administrative law judge system is valid, affording equal justice to fishermen and others charged with violating regulations.

The report should not carry much weight, and that's not just because the fishing community and many local, state and federal officials know otherwise. Indeed, a 2007 investigation by the Baltimore Sun newspaper showed that judges found overwhelmingly in favor of the Coast Guard when it brought charges against fishermen.

But the report is also hopelessly flawed and devoid of any credibility because the GAO did not even consider cases brought against fishermen and fishing merchants by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which uses the Coast Guard courts to try its cases. It also makes no references of allegations of improper influence by the chief justice on the trial judge assigned to hear a case against the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction.

In short, the report doesn't even deal with areas that really matter, where there is considerable evidence of unequal justice.

To many, that's probably no surprise. It's probably just not realistic to think that every federal report would undertake a truly honest assessment of one of the feds' own agencies.

But the GAO report on the Coast Guard administrative law system is especially disappointing because of its contrast with the recent report by Coast Guard Atlantic Area commander, Vice Adm. Robert J. Papp Jr. on his own service's response to the tragic Jan. 3 sinking of the fishing boat Patriot, and the loss of Capt. Matteo Russo, 36, and his father-in-law, John Orlando, 59.

Papp's report was both thorough and unsparing in its analysis of why the Coast Guard failed to launch full-fledged search-and-rescue efforts for nearly 21’Ñ2 hours after the first indication that something was wrong. He called it a "systemic failure" by duty personnel at multiple levels.

Thankfully, the embarrassing GAO report will not be the last word on the administrative law matter. The Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, which includes NOAA, will be investigating how NOAA has used the Coast Guard and the Massachusetts Environmental Police to enforce fishing regulations.

Both the fishing community and the state's congressional delegation have demanded an investigation of what they say is NOAA's "vindictive" and "retaliatory" approach to enforcement.

And one prime example of that is the Gloucester Seafood Display Auction, which learned Friday it's facing even more legally questionable sanctions under the heavy-handed arms of NOAA enforcement.

The auction, you'll recall, came close to complete vindication in a case brought by the Coast Guard in 2006. The Coast Guard had sought to shut down the auction for 90 days and to fine it $120,000. The first judge threw the case out entirely. On appeal, a second judge cut the suspension to 20 days and the fine to $20,000. But now there is another case, brought this past February, in which the Coast Guard is seeking a shutdown of 120 days and fines of more than $300,000 for 59 counts of allegedly brokering thousands of pounds of illegally caught fish. And, to top it all off, NOAA notified the auction Friday it's pressing for a 10-day shutdown over an alleged "probation" violation stemming from charges that are still on appeal in federal district court.

And that's a fair system?

It is troubling, to say the least, that two administrative law judges, including the one assigned to the current case against the auction, are key players in the ongoing investigation of the system. This amounts to letting those within the system investigate themselves, and that can hardly be objective. Yet all of that somehow seems fine with the GAO.

Look, enforcement of the laws of the sea and of fishing regulations is important. And everyone knows that regulations must be enforced. But for that enforcement to be credible, it must be fair.

Sorting that out and earning that credibility is going to take an impartial, objective investigation.

But the GAO Coast Guard law report sure isn't it. It may not be the least bit funny, but it sure is a joke.