the extremists/ be careful

Tue Jan 23 16:03:01 EST 2001

Quite correct. A mix of deliberate and accidental acts was dealt with in
accordance to the laws of the land. One thing to consider is the possibility
that some of the "side issues" may be germane after all.  As usual it
depends on the perspective/context from which one decides if something is a
side issue or not.  Although I have not done an analysis and have not
thought about this topic for some years; I concede that they could very well
all be side issues from a purely legal perspective, albeit that is for the
judge hearing the case to decide.  Happily the world is not confined to the
numerous legal perspectives and rules of law that exist around the globe..
A side issue in the USA legal system may be a legitimate central issue under
another legal system.  Going beyond the legal perspective of 'sidedness'
there are other perspectives related to the role of government, the public
interest, motivations of "the good guys" in the equation and probably many
others.  Just another view on this unfortunate set of circumstances that
many people have learned from. For things that were not deliberate and which
are widely recognized as being poorly known at the time; I still think that
the US fish and wildlife service enforcers would have served the public
interest far better through an education initiative rather than choseing to
use a sting operation (=deliberate deceit, does the end really justify the
means?) . However that was their call and I do not vote in the USA so my
opinion matters not :-) - my hindsight is only 19/19 :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Richers [mailto:KeRichers at wasco.k12.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:12 PM
To: Leps-l at lists.yale.edu; drdn at mail.utexas.edu; gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Subject: Re: the extremists/ be careful

As one who works in the public educational field and has to punish
trangressions large and small on a frequent basis, one item that stands out
in the cases that cannot be overlooked is the aura of flaunting the
government laws while the collecting was going on.  The arguments about not
knowing the law become spurious when the correspondence is read between the
alleged perpetrators.  While many of us may profess not to fully understand
the Lacey act and the CITES rules, and might in fact be in violation of
aspects of it, we do not generally publicly display our "in your face"
attitude that gets so many in trouble.  As I say to students on a frequent
basis-"Why are you surprised you  are in trouble?  You tried to antagonize
your teacher and you succeeded. " These men to some extent exhibited
behavior designed to antagonize the government-it is pretty hard not to know
that you cannot collect in a National Park when you are making your activity
covert, and then one at least tried to divert attention from the issue with
a plethora of side issues-not that some of us have seen this behavior in
others ever...

>>> "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org> 01/23/01 11:27AM >>>
There was once this Chinese American who worked on military, national
security, the anti-bomb, who known what-all top of the top secret stuff.
Well, one day, because some top secret *stuff* came up missing from his
office complex, Republican-out-to-get-Clintonism and who knows what else -
he had hundreds of pages of accusations (facts according the arrestors)
thrown at him to (as Norbert put it) see how much crap would stick. It was
all over the world news. Obviously, guilty as charged! The damned spy!!!
And especially guilty and damned because he was of Chinese ethnic origin
and not white European American genes.

Well, first impressions are lasting ones!!! GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, as
(and here is the first key word here) CHARGED.  In the end 99.9% of the
charges were not only dropped, but the Judge who had him locked up for
months as a national security risk, apologized publicly and said he and the
nation had been deceived by partisan and over zealous law enforcement.

Just before the judge released this INNOCENT  scientist he pled guilty to
one *charge* of taking-stuff-home-from-the-office-to-work-on. Even the
press said that this was a face saving thing on the part of the Law and was
agreed to by this innocent man because he just wanted to get out of jail
and go back to the life he no longer had.

Has anybody ever been destroyed in America by the IRS only later to have it
come out that they had not done anything wrong? Even Bill Gates does not
have the resources to fight against the Big Brother when he attacks.

The relativity here to the several people charged and arrested for
poaching, or collecting without a permit in Mexico - is that they were also
tried, and found innocent of many of the things they were charged with.
They pled guilty to some charges -because they had -technically- broken the
law. The judge however, felt that the whole thing was blown out of
proportion and sentenced  almost all the charged to what seemed (to those
who clung to their first impression and ranting, libelous, dispersions) as
a slap on the wrist.

There are still lots of feelings and opinions lingering about all this -
especially in the collecting community. In some ways it is something that
should be left alone. On the other hand there is a story yet to be told.
Some who know the details of this other story are not willing to risk their
lives (literally) to tell it. Probably the best (or worse) person to
contact about this other story is one Dave Baggett - if anyone finds him
let me know.

--Ron

PS The abstract of this post is this. What specifically were these guys
found guilty of and what was the actual penalty? The degree of a penalty
reflects the severity of a crime (except in the eyes of the victim's family
who always wants blood, and the eyes of the perpetrators mother who always
wants her baby to receive sainthood).

PPS  Tom Kral, John Kimner, and others are not ashamed of their names. I'm
also sure they don't appreciate others cloaking their identity, which only
perpetuates an aura of villainy to them. They are leading normal lives. No
matter what degree they did something wrong (or foolishly) - they have paid
their debt and it is over. They live public lives, have loving families,
and still collect (with the governments approval).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: the extremists/ be careful

> For those of us who joined this list long after the flap about ?Tom (as
> indicated below), all this just whizzes over our heads. Is there a
synopsis
> of the event recorded somewhere. I am guessing these veiled references
are
> to past USFW cases of which there have now been several of mixed merit
and
> mixed outcome. There have been a lot of inches of computer screen devoted
> to vague innuendo that is lost on those of us who joined later. If you
must
> discuss these issues please provide names and references so we can catch
> up. At least provide a cast of characters. Put up or shut up!
> ..............Chris Durden
>
>
> At 08:26 AM 1/23/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >Let us abandon the question of the "poacher" before Neil drowns us all
> >in data. Neil, would you, as a personal favor to me, post your
> >information *on your web page*. I was here during the court trial and
> >conviction of "He Who Must Not be Named" and remember well his happy
> >decision that he could profitably spend his community service hours
> >posting emails to Our List discussing his crimes, his virtues, and how
> >we might best redeem our own lives as he had been redeemed.
> >All of this has got to be in the archives, and Neil probably stored the
> >stuff he wrote somewhere.
> >But KEEP it on the web page, for the love of God. Many of us set our
> >browsers to reject postings on the subject, by the perps, or even
> >containing the word Tom. Those of us who were too dumb to do so, cursed
> >a lot.
> >Ted Williams wrote an article for Audubon Magazine, the screaming from
> >this list shook the world, and it was a long time before the fragile
> >peace was declared which now endures.
> >As you'll note, there are still hard feelings, here and there, on the
> >collector/anti-collector
> >issue, but it was polarized for a while there.
> >Now we are, most of us, contented on a middle ground where it's ok to
> >collect, ok not to collect, and *not* ok to spring at each other's
> >throats.
> >It is even safe to make small jokes about collecting. As I have a couple
> >of boxed butterflies, and have mounted a few micro-moths for a dollhouse
> >collection, I am myself a collector ... but was at the forefront among
> >the anti-collectors.
> >But now we know each other, we understand each other, and it's all
> >different. Some of my best friends are collectors, and we dig side by
> >side in the same gardens.
> >There are some spots, however, still too sore to probe. Let's not go
> >there.
> >Anne Kilmer
> >South Florida
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
<http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
<http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl>

 ------------------------------------------------------------

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl