khouse
Forum Supporter
Wow. That was a sad story. Plus an eye opener.
Advice legal or otherwise National parks
- Thread starter Hdnsouth
- Start date
mountain digger
Elite Member
garyo1954,
Just gotta love the fairness of our 'system'! But I must say, I think you got one heck of an education.
Just gotta love the fairness of our 'system'! But I must say, I think you got one heck of an education.
garyo1954,
Just gotta love the fairness of our 'system'! But I must say, I think you got one heck of an education.
Yes, I went for never having seen the inside of a jail in 45 years to seeing how well my rights were protected by judges.
I learned how well the idea of the "just making an argument" system works for the common citizen.
I learned how well judges familiarize themselves with law and go over the details provided before a hearing. (When the judge started screaming, me, and the state attorney, knew that he hadn't bothered to look at the folder, much less open it to see why I was there.)
On the other hand, this all led to the district attorney "retiring," the original attorney for the state being reassigned, the judge of 17 years being removed from the bench by the Judicial Ethics Commission, and the state of Texas implementing a law that cost the taxpayers $20 million dollars to ensure that a person confined to jail sees a lawyer within 3 to 10 days of incarceration, depending on the county.
All I got was homelessness and a guarantee to see my son.
It all comes back every time there is a topic about your rights and the law posted. It comes back every time I read an AP report that says, "confined with no lawyer on record," "no lawyer recorded," "it's unknown if he/she has counsel."
In these cases, they'll likely meet their lawyer on the court date, in front of a judge who has no idea the circumstances and no idea what the law actually says.
khouse
Forum Supporter
This whole thing has made me mad. I had to get a shot of Whisky. I can't imagine how you felt/feel?
You should have gotten the 20 million!
Least a cop didn't shoot you in the back eight times, like that man in South Carolina the other day, over a child support warrant. I'd imagine that a judge would have a whole lot of latitude on a case involving a hobby, like metal detecting, the seldom gets brought before the courts. Kind of why I think it's bad advice, to push the issue to that point. You can probably win, most of the time, and eventually, but could be a long, and expensive adventure, just to prove a point, and get the operatunity to dig a few bottle caps and pull tabs.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,748
Gary1954, thanx for taking the time to type that all out. It gives us a little insight as to who-you-are , what you went through, and how it's perhaps analogous to the discussion of md'ing and "laws". Ie.: whether or not the "law is on your side" or whether it's a good idea to "tangle with the legal system, even if you're in-the-right", etc... And I suppose the entire point of it is to be better-safe-than sorry and 1) ask "can I detect" (thus "having permission"), or 2) Don't detect at all. Right ?
To all of this I would say that I don't disagree that if someone knew they were "about to tangle with the legal system" (like in your story), THEN SURE: that's not a wise idea (even if you're "right").
But this all assumes that such an encounter would occur, in the first place. If we all had crystal balls and knew ahead of time, then sure, we'd all make perfect risk calculations. doh !
So my solution, is to avoid such semantics/legal battles from the git-go. If you're out-of-sight, then you're out-of-mind. I won't look for a fight (as your story suggests is not wise), and will avoid it (avoid lookie-lous). BUT IF A FIGHT OCCURRED (some over-zealous ranger that's mis-interprepretting the rules) I will not let that risk cause me to sit at home and take up needle-point as a hobby.
To all of this I would say that I don't disagree that if someone knew they were "about to tangle with the legal system" (like in your story), THEN SURE: that's not a wise idea (even if you're "right").
But this all assumes that such an encounter would occur, in the first place. If we all had crystal balls and knew ahead of time, then sure, we'd all make perfect risk calculations. doh !
So my solution, is to avoid such semantics/legal battles from the git-go. If you're out-of-sight, then you're out-of-mind. I won't look for a fight (as your story suggests is not wise), and will avoid it (avoid lookie-lous). BUT IF A FIGHT OCCURRED (some over-zealous ranger that's mis-interprepretting the rules) I will not let that risk cause me to sit at home and take up needle-point as a hobby.
We had an old grey haired judge. Can't remember his name now? But he didn't like men at all. You went in front of him, your Buttocks was in a sling!
National parks, probably not. National forests, GO FOR IT. As far as the part about "modern items only" I never find anything old, do you? I consider anything newer than 200 yrs. old to be "new" afterall. And "disturbing the ground", well, ... I leaved no trace (cover my holes) so as not to have disturbED anything. Don't you ?
I agree with Tom 100%.
Tom, you can try to avoid all you want but if you meet deputy dog or judge Roy Bean, who will decide what law he chooses to follow, your semantics and what you feel is old won't get you anywhere.
I was lucky. The deputies got me on community service even though it wasn't ordered, to keep me sane through all this. And one of the jailers did all the xeroxing. You won't ever hear me complain about the treatment I received in jail.
BBsGal
Forum Supporter
This is something we learned very early on in my police training. It's a sad but true fact that there are three distinct types of law.
1. Statutory Law, 2. Common Law, 3. Whatever the Judge Says law
That third one is the one that bites everyone on both sides of the rail in the backside on a regular basis, because there's no way of knowing what mood any given judge will be in on any given day. Scary stuff....
LOL Should have known you would understand! Thanks!
Tom, it's easy to talk about what you would do, but until do exercise your rights, like the Cal-Berkley tree sitters, or the police brutality protesters, abortion protesters, and any of the causes, and find yourself in jail, it's all talk.
The American past-time seems to be talking about our rights, but given the choice of going to jail in defense of those rights, or having those rights stripped away and not going to jail, 99% will choose the easy, no jail path.
99% of all people who agree with a cause will watch others, rooting silently, hoping he/she wins, but they wouldn't do the same. They wouldn't risk all they have to protect their rights.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,748
Gary: I fully agree that there will be times that
a) lack of a specific prohibition DOESN'T mean that everyone greets you and I with open arms. Ie.: they can perhaps morph something else to apply.
b) that even if ALL the "bases are covered", and it's un-deniably a "right" and "allowed" through various semantics discussed here on forums, that ... YES that doesn't stop someone from getting "roughed up". Because yes: cops and judges aren't always as perfect as we think they should be. Or .... while you may prevail eventually, that ... yes, the interum process "wasn't worth it".
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ALL THAT
Yet I still maintain that none of that means that "therefore we all need to march down to desk-bound pencil pushers and seek permission for every sand box we come to"
The only time I would put out my logic (of "silent on the subject" or "alter versus alterED" or "new versus old @ cultural heritage" etc...) is when *IF* the confrontation happened, and ever went to that degree (you'll most often only get a "scram"). Contrast to the examples you give of abortion protestors, tree-sitters, etc... were LOOKING for exposure.
So I pick the most off -times (even if it means hunting at night) to avoid such gripers and might exist in the population. But if, per chance, some confrontation did happen, THEN I would rely on my logic, semantics, etc....
Thus please don't think that my stance is somehow justifying waltzing over beach blankets at an archie convention while screaming "look at this indian bone I found" etc...
HuntNH
Full Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2015
- Messages
- 168
Tell us about the areas you hunted for all those gold coins
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,748
Ok: All 14 of my gold coins came from locations with the following prescriptions:
1) All found on public land
2) All with prior permission from multiple higher up officials there (not just lowly front desk clerks) to detect there.
3) That permission clearly stipulated that I'd be digging, taking, removing, etc... (so that there would be no "mincing of words" or "half truths" or "permission under false pretenses, etc...)
4) I asked for the permission in writing, so they signed the "contract" I put in front of them to sign.
5) They were totally aware of the gold coins found (I sent them an email with links to the pix, and all the atteboys received in the show & tell time on forums).
6) They wished me well, gave me high 5's, and everything was hunky-dory!
ok, any other questions ?
Gary: I fully agree that there will be times that
a) lack of a specific prohibition DOESN'T mean that everyone greets you and I with open arms. Ie.: they can perhaps morph something else to apply.
b) that even if ALL the "bases are covered", and it's un-deniably a "right" and "allowed" through various semantics discussed here on forums, that ... YES that doesn't stop someone from getting "roughed up". Because yes: cops and judges aren't always as perfect as we think they should be. Or .... while you may prevail eventually, that ... yes, the interum process "wasn't worth it".
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ALL THAT
Yet I still maintain that none of that means that "therefore we all need to march down to desk-bound pencil pushers and seek permission for every sand box we come to"
The only time I would put out my logic (of "silent on the subject" or "alter versus alterED" or "new versus old @ cultural heritage" etc...) is when *IF* the confrontation happened, and ever went to that degree (you'll most often only get a "scram"). Contrast to the examples you give of abortion protestors, tree-sitters, etc... were LOOKING for exposure.
So I pick the most off -times (even if it means hunting at night) to avoid such gripers and might exist in the population. But if, per chance, some confrontation did happen, THEN I would rely on my logic, semantics, etc....
Thus please don't think that my stance is somehow justifying waltzing over beach blankets at an archie convention while screaming "look at this indian bone I found" etc...
Tom, the examples are to give you an understanding of what people do when they are committed to a cause. I haven't mentioned any of the semantics you discuss, nor did I use any of the erroneous translated phrasing (semantics) you use.
The most polite way to say it is you tend to avoid confrontation while telling others to put themselves in situations where a confrontation is likely. And when the state summons you to court, there is no avoidance. You will either go of your own free will, or the judge will issue a warrant.
Before I give advice, I do it myself. Your translations (semantics) always fit a scenario you want, and that's always the truth.
I can understand where one would get the impression that everything was for naught. But that's another erroneous translation. Nothing could be less truthful.
I don't live in that county, but if any of you are familiar with the TV show Justified, this place is/was pretty much Harlan County. People in surrounding counties describe it as inbred, backwoods. Lawyers from this county won't go there. Legal services won't go there.
One police chief was removed for unspecified improprieties in the department. The next chief lasted months until an officer was caught manufacturing and selling silencers and another accused of cheating on pull tab games at the American Legion. He quit.
The district attorney's house burnt to the ground. People called it revenge. When I was in jail, one inmate told another story. According to him, he knew who burnt it and knew they received $10,000 for doing it. Insurance scam he called it.
This was an election year. The district attorney had started writing a column to build a voter base. One column stated they were feeding prisoners on $3.17 a DAY. This was a federally funded jail. It received $100 per prisoner per day. It was built for 72 prisoners and for weeks at a time there as many as 88 prisoners. Some cells had no hot water. The roof leaked. No heat in the winter, for most of the summer no air. Some electric outlets had no covers and others didn't work. It couldn't afford to send prisoners to the clinic. One night, at least 18 prisoners suffered food poisoning, myself included.
Numbers don't lie. Take 72 prisoners per day at $100, that's $7200 per day. In thirty days the jail had generated 216,000 federal dollars. To feed 72 people for 30 days on $3.17 a day is an expenditure of $6847.20.
88 meals a day for 30 days is $8368.80.
$216,000 minus $6847.20 = a whole lot of missing money. So, where was the hot water, the heat, the air, the clinic visits that the federal government was paying for?
This system leads to packing the jail with as many bodies possible as long as the law allows to accumulate federal dollars. And with questions mounting, about August the district attorney decided to retire rather than seek another term.
One sheriff was caught in a sting by the FBI for tipping drug runners and receiving money for safe passage through the county. He was sentenced to fed time.
The next sheriff brought in a company to sell commissary. That ended when the company disappeared with a good deal of money put up by the families for the inmates to buy what they needed. Two years later, nobody had been charged. I was in jail near the end of his term. He wasn't re-elected.
I felt guilty having to serve the new sheriff with a Writ of Habaeus. I kept wondering what to say to this guy. In the end, I said, "Darrel, I need to give you this."
He took it. He said, "Is everything okay?"
I said, "Yes, sir."
And returned back to my cell.
The police chief from the next city up the highway also made a deal with the drug runners and was selling drugs through his kids at school. He was doing fed time.
This wasn't the judge's first rodeo either. He made the front page by getting in a drunken brawl with another man over making inappropriate advances toward the man's wife. He followed that up with an affair involving a teller in the motor bank. They were caught in the motor bank. She got fired.
The judge decided they could not fire her and proceeded to go to the president of the bank during business hours and tell him as much. The president of the bank refused to listen.
He was quoted in the newspaper as saying, in front of several witness, in a very loud voice, "You may be the boss here, but I'm the boss across the street (the courthouse). She's going to sue and I'm going to hear the case, and you're going to lose."
All this in a span of the last 8 years had the FBI, Texas Rangers, DEA, and whoever else, doing investigations/stings into the way certain office holders were performing their duties. People in law enforcement and the courthouse being indicted and some sent to prison.
I was in that courtroom one more time. Still in arrears.
It took almost two years to get off the street which was another two years without seeing my son. Finally, I have a job, a place of my own, and trying to get caught up. I get a letter for an AG hearing in this same county where I had spent all that time in jail. I go.
While everyone is getting situated, the bailiff pulls me aside and says, "We have the number two man from the AG office in Austin here. Just so you know."
Then a woman calls my name and I present myself. She says she's been instructed to put me before the judge. We go into the courtroom. As soon as the judge is through with whatever he's hearing, she has a sidebar. He nods. She ushers me and my ex in front of him.
He says, "So you're the one?"
I say nothing.
"Well, we need to get you a lawyer."
He asks the bailiff to name a lawyer. The name is announced, my ex objects on the grounds that he was the judge in the divorce. I didn't say anything.
The bailiff names another lawyer. He wasn't in the courtroom, so I waited. When we finally go to mediation, the woman is not the mediator. Instead, the number two man in the AG office is sitting there. My lawyer and I are standing before him and my ex has taken a chair off to the side. Before he says anything my ex let's out, "He should be back in jail!"
And this guy, pauses with his face away from her, smiles and says, "Okay, that will be all we need from you. You can go."
Then he opens the folder. On one side is 8 pages. On my side there is 2 inches. He says, "You have written a lot about this."
I check my lawyer about commenting and he advises me to say nothing.
The AG guy continues to rifle the file, making small talk about what happened after I got out, how I felt about what happened, what was I doing now, etc.
Finally he announces, "You're still $2200 in arrears."
Nothing.
After a pause he continues, "Your ex is complaining, but I can't do anything. Try to catch up."
My lawyer thanks him.
I thank him.
We all shake hands.
I caught up. My son is grown, I don't owe a penny in child support.
I bought a house to be closer to him, but not in that county, and life goes on.
You can't know the different feelings, unless you experience it first hand, of being herded into a courtroom where you are promised jail because the county can make $100 a night on your being there, and the second court where you are treated as a human being.
Yes, one person can make a difference. Although the state, the federal government, had already targeted this county for cleanup, I didn't know much of what was happening outside my realm. But I like to think I acted as a catalyst to bring about some of that change without semantics.
