Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waning Gibbous (99% of Full)


Advanced

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

November 17, 2004 09:12AM
Wizard, interesting post above in that I agree with much you say. Please understand however that I am not trying to defend Scott or change the outcome of his court appearance. Although there are some grounds for a review of his plea, on such a very light sentence, such would be totally impractical cost wise. With all the local allegations of what Scott has done at the springs, I would totally agree that he got off easy.

My initial response to this topic feed off of the original post by Ron. Ron posted: "This last Wednesday Scott got his day in court. He went prepared to contest all six citations with an attorney." Ron then went on to claim that the prosecution immediately "...waived the two remaining charges which were, staying beyond the day use hours as it was included in the camping citation and posession of glass containers as aparently it is not posted at the springs..."

A few of the follow-up posts made me question if Scott truly "got his day in court" as Ron claimed. In checking the law of 36 CFR Sec. 261.16, I found that the citation under that alleged violation should have been dropped also. If his attorney advised Scott to plead guilty to that, obviously, the attorney had not even read the law so how could Ron claim that Scott truly "...went prepared to contest all six citations..."

I'm sure Scott thought he was prepared because he thought he had an attorney properly advising him; and Scott blindly took his attorney's advice (which sent Scott down the river).

Should the hot springs be legally posted for some of the other items (restrictions) in which Scott was cited for? Should those citations have been dropped also because they are also not posted? Should his attorney have argued that people hike and camp and use stoves along the other portions of the Pacific Crest Trail continuously; so why isn't the portion along Deep Creek posted with a warning that that tiny portion of the PCT has a special restriction? Do we have Entrapment here? Smells like it! Lack of Due Process of notice? Hmmmmm.

Did Scott know better? Yes.
Was Scott warned? I'm sure many posters here warned him.
Did the Forest Service PROPERLY post it's restrictions to make their local special restrictions enforceable? Not that I've ever seen.

Yes, all the local hot springers know of the special restrictions. Scott, I'm sure, knew them too. But for the special restrictions to be enforceable under law, adequate notice needs to be posted for everyone; otherwise, the court will likely rule entrapment. If Scott knew how to challenge the prosecutor's allegations, he may have been totally exonerated.

Morally, I believe that we all would feel that exoneration would have been wrong. However, legally, such may have been proper because the authorities have the responsibilities to follow the law too which requires them to meet their obligations. Yes, sometimes some bad people get a free release (such as inadmissible evidence because of an illegal search), but the release is based upon rights which protects our higher rights.

SubjectAuthorViewsPosted

Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Ron 1065October 23, 2004 08:22PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 619October 23, 2004 09:00PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

LaughingBear 640October 24, 2004 02:31PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Ron 666October 25, 2004 08:30PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

jobe 549October 27, 2004 10:24AM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Paul P. 605October 27, 2004 05:08PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 502October 27, 2004 07:52PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Paul P. 538October 28, 2004 12:23PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 592October 28, 2004 04:18PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 560November 21, 2004 02:44PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

LaughingBear 541October 28, 2004 09:25PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

jobe 551October 28, 2004 10:15PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

katrina island 480November 01, 2004 09:15PM

Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Willa Zoe 657November 11, 2004 08:44PM

Re: Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Rick 934November 21, 2004 02:45PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Paul P. 577November 12, 2004 03:50PM

Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Willa Zoe 719November 12, 2004 07:30PM

Re: Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Duane 598November 12, 2004 10:11PM

Re: Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Willa Zoe 583November 13, 2004 02:01PM

Re: Scott Parker Is Innocent! Well, almost.

Rick 666November 13, 2004 08:19PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 537November 12, 2004 10:46PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 616November 13, 2004 08:22PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 558November 13, 2004 08:48PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

LaughingBear 598November 13, 2004 09:33PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 598November 13, 2004 10:16PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Paul P. 604November 15, 2004 09:58AM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Willa Zoe 610November 16, 2004 11:06AM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 571November 16, 2004 02:28PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

LaughingBear 592November 16, 2004 03:32PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Paul P. 527November 16, 2004 05:32PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 541November 16, 2004 07:53PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Willa Zoe 548November 17, 2004 09:12AM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Rick 562November 17, 2004 08:21PM

Re: Scott Parker Pleads Guilty

Wizard 602November 17, 2004 08:47PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login