A whole new story to the man who civilly disobeyed to protest a land auction

[Craig234]

I'd like people who want to see this story to watch the two consecutive segments from Chris Hayes' TV show on the topic. They lay out the information well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46982806#46982806

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46982806#46982835

I won't try to summarize it but will reiterate a couple points.

One is that the protestor was there to protest what he viewed as rushed and corrupt sales of federal land as the Bush administration was just about to leave.

Turns out, the new Secretary under Obama found the sales had been rushed, and cancelled all of them; they were also reported to be rigged by the Koch brothers.

So, the protestor was right not only on the morals, but on the corruption, and the federal government took his position.

Now, the man who stood up for morals here is sentenced to two years in prison.

The officials who acted corruptly and the interests like the Kock brothers who behaved corruptly are not being punished. Who should be - the man, or the officials and Kochs?

Oh by the way, he came up with the money for the first payment owed; they wouldn't take it. 29 others have bid on properties they couldn't pay for; none were charged.

There's a lot more info in the clips, watch then comment (prefer no knee-jerk posts without watching the clips).

I think the guy is a hero here.

 

[CycloWizard]

The federal government didn't take anyone's position. Bush's administration had one position and, not surprisingly, Obama's administration took the opposite. Furthermore, the government taking one side or the other doesn't imply that that side is right or wrong unless you are working under the assumption that the government can do no wrong.

 

[bononos]

Has the Koch charitable foundation been so influential as to blind to what they just did?

 

[monovillage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_DeChristopher

He broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law. He should not only be jailed, he should have to pay restitution to the businesses that lost money due to his actions.

 

[Craig234]

...watch then comment (prefer no knee-jerk posts without watching the clips).

For the hard of reading:

...watch then comment (prefer no knee-jerk posts without watching the clips).

 

[xBiffx]

For the hard of reading:

Can you quote that in a sig so that I can read it?

 

[monovillage]

For the hard of reading:

There is no rule in this forum that I have to watch a biased video, from a biased site, posted by a biased OP to comment on a legal case I can reference easily from Google search. The guy is a convicted criminal that got off easy.
Wouldn't it be cool if we all could commit crimes and then have a staff of liberal assholes find a reason for us to justify the crime years after it occurred? Especially if it was the classic Bu...Bu....Bu....But BUSH excuse.

 

[nonlnear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_DeChristopher

He broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law. He should not only be jailed, he should have to pay restitution to the businesses that lost money due to his actions.

Is that always a bad thing? Deliberately breaking an evil law is a defining moment in the stories of many heroes.

 

[monovillage]

Is that always a bad thing? Deliberately breaking an evil law is a defining moment in the stories of many heroes.

I should only have to observe the laws and rules that I want to observe also. Sounds fair to me that if this whiny little armpit sniffer gets to only follow the laws he approves of that the same should hold true for every citizen in the U.S.



EDIT - Out of deference to craig234 and his OP request I am going to willingly withdraw from this thread to allow him the chance to post without my being a distraction.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wait! Wait! The Bushistas sold out to the Koch Bros? Couldn't be!

The Bush Admin & the Repub congress existed for the purpose of selling out the govt of the people to the interests of wealth. They did a mighty fine job of it, getting tripped up only occasionally. They'd sell their own mothers to line their pockets. It's what they believe in.

 

[Genx87]

Wait! Wait! The Bushistas sold out to the Koch Bros? Couldn't be!

The Bush Admin & the Repub congress existed for the purpose of selling out the govt of the people to the interests of wealth. They did a mighty fine job of it, getting tripped up only occasionally. They'd sell their own mothers to line their pockets. It's what they believe in.

It must pain you to know Obama follows Bush in this and many regards.

 

[soundforbjt]

It must pain you to know Obama follows Bush in this and many regards.

Yet many of you never complained when Bush did it, but now that Obama's president, well you know. :sneaky:

 

[Genx87]

Yet many of you never complained when Bush did it, but now that Obama's president, well you know. :sneaky:

So what? Because we made a mistake we should continue making the same mistake for the sake of consistency?

 

[Jhhnn]

It must pain you to know Obama follows Bush in this and many regards.

It does. OTOH, the movers and shakers are part of what makes our society work. It's the difference between a young woman who's been known to fool around and another who's selling herself at the entrance to the Holland tunnel...

 

[nonlnear]

I should only have to observe the laws and rules that I want to observe also. Sounds fair to me that if this whiny little armpit sniffer gets to only follow the laws he approves of that the same should hold true for every citizen in the U.S.

How is DeChristopher any less of an American patriot than the perps in the Boston Tea Party? If anything, the Boston vandals were less justified than DeChristopher in what he did. Tim got the shaft because he had the will to follow through on doing the right thing without the cover of a mob. The auctions that he feloniously subverted were being conducted illegally in the first place - a fact that was deemed inadmissible at DeChirstopher's trial.

Why exactly is it so imperative to the functioning of our society that individuals follow the law when the government itself is able to break it with sovereign immunity, and imprison anyone who gets in its way while doing so?

 

[woolfe9999]

How is DeChristopher any less of an American patriot than the perps in the Boston Tea Party? If anything, the Boston vandals were less justified than DeChristopher in what he did. Tim got the shaft because he had the will to follow through on doing the right thing without the cover of a mob. The auctions that he feloniously subverted were being conducted illegally in the first place - a fact that was deemed inadmissible at DeChirstopher's trial.

Why exactly is it so imperative to the functioning of our society that individuals follow the law when the government itself is able to break it with sovereign immunity, and imprison anyone who gets in its way while doing so?

I support DeChristopher's goals and I think his actions were admirable, but I still think if he broke the law he has to be punished. What do you think should happen here legally?

 

[LumbergTech]

I support DeChristopher's goals and I think his actions were admirable, but I still think if he broke the law he has to be punished. What do you think should happen here legally?

If the law criminals good behavior, it should not be enforced.

 

[woolfe9999]

If the law criminals good behavior, it should not be enforced.

And who gets to decide when to temporarily suspend the law for "good behavior?" We have a system in place that gives discretion to judges in the sentencing phase whereby a minimum sentence can be imposed if there are extenuating circumstances. I don't think we can just suspend the law whenever we feel someone's motives are pure.

With true civil disobedience you are supposed to accept your punishment and use it as springboard to raise public awareness. Avoiding punishment isn't the point of civil disobedience.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the law criminals good behavior, it should not be enforced.

Who makes that determination?

 

[LumbergTech]

Who makes that determination?

I don't really feel the need to have this debate. Seen it on here a few times. There are those who feel that the law must be followed at all times and there are those that think that sometimes its proven to be faulty and must not be enforced. If you think that the task is difficult to administer the law to the entire population than I concur, but I don't see that as an excuse to punish those who do the right thing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

That is the problem; what is right in one persons eyes may not be correct for another.

Which is why we have both laws and the courts to oversee.

 

[nonlnear]

I support DeChristopher's goals and I think his actions were admirable, but I still think if he broke the law he has to be punished. What do you think should happen here legally?

I am very cautious about using the words legally and should together. The practice of law is an elaborate game of three card monte where, instead of hiding the money card, the system hides justice. When the just outcome must be at the expense of exposing government wrongdoing and denying high paid lobbyists their gravy, you can count on the fact that justice was never on the table to begin with.

The entire determination of "broke the law" was a sham. DeChristopher was forbidden from makign an affirmitive defense, was forbidden from using the fact that the auctions were illegal in his defense, and forbidden from arguing selective prosecution. We do not have the rule of law in the United States. In a lot of cases we have an acceptable appropximation, but it should be no surprise that in a case where the "victims" were gaming the system from the start and the government's actions were the real underlying cause that the process ends up looking like a kangaroo court.

 

[nonlnear]

I don't really feel the need to have this debate. Seen it on here a few times. There are those who feel that the law must be followed at all times and there are those that think that sometimes its proven to be faulty and must not be enforced. If you think that the task is difficult to administer the law to the entire population than I concur, but I don't see that as an excuse to punish those who do the right thing.

On the contrary, in order to engender popular docility, doing the right thing is the only thing that must be punished.

If someone occasionally gets away with murder due to a loophole designed to make it harder to secure a wrongful conviction, people can be convinced that that is the price of liberty (and rightfully so). On the other hand if people are allowed to stand up for justice with impunity when the governmnet breaks its own rules to enrich its cronies, then there is no room for mercy. You can't let that dam crack. This is why you will not see any DoiJ action in this case no matter who is President.

 

[woolfe9999]

I am very cautious about using the words legally and should together. The practice of law is an elaborate game of three card monte where, instead of hiding the money card, the system hides justice. When the just outcome must be at the expense of exposing government wrongdoing and denying high paid lobbyists their gravy, you can count on the fact that justice was never on the table to begin with.

The entire determination of "broke the law" was a sham. DeChristopher was forbidden from makign an affirmitive defense, was forbidden from using the fact that the auctions were illegal in his defense, and forbidden from arguing selective prosecution. We do not have the rule of law in the United States. In a lot of cases we have an acceptable appropximation, but it should be no surprise that in a case where the "victims" were gaming the system from the start and the government's actions were the real underlying cause that the process ends up looking like a kangaroo court.

If you're saying that he had legitimate defenses under the law and was denied those defenses, then fair enough. I haven't reviewed the case or the applicable law closely enough to say whether I agree or disagree. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't arguing that he shouldn't be prosecuted just because he's a good guy.

 

[nonlnear]

If you're saying that he had legitimate defenses under the law and was denied those defenses, then fair enough. I haven't reviewed the case or the applicable law closely enough to say whether I agree or disagree. I just wanted to be clear that you weren't arguing that he shouldn't be prosecuted just because he's a good guy.

I wouldn't say that. There is a case to be made that he shouldn't be prosecuted because 29 other auction winners never paid either. (The selective prosecution argument he wasn't allowed to present at trial.)