[at-l] Stiffed by Hiker

[icw39@ncfreedom.net (Clark Wright)]

Jim, you make some darn good points - points that are not too much in
conflict with what I said, with the one exception re the specificity of
the identification . . . on that, upon reflection, I think I like your
argument better than my own initial suggestion - AS LONG AS the poster
is careful to ONLY state the FACTS, and not any legal or moral
conclusions.  Your final comment is one of those instances where I agree
with you at first blush-rush as a citizen, but disagree once all the
legal ramifications are taken into account.  In short, it's one of those
laws that makes sense from the system's point of view, but maybe not
from an individual's point of view - sort of like the exclusionary rule,
which can allow a known killer to go free where the key evidence was
obtained via an illegal search - the theory being that the sanctity of
the law and the system is more important than the result in any one
case.

Whether you or I consider it nonsense or not, it is in fact and law
illegal in most states to threaten criminal prosecution as a means to
collect on a check - sorry, but that simply is the law.  The reason for
it probably is twofold:  (1) the overburdened criminal justice system
does not want to deal with relatively small amount bad check cases as
criminal offenses; and (2) because there are potential extenuating
circumstances, the initial presumption re bad checks is to treat them as
civil offenses [in the nature of collecting on a debt] and not criminal
offenses.

hiking on, gavel in tow! :)

thru-thinker

Jim and/or Ginny Owen wrote:
> 
> Clark Wright wrote:
> >Well, I've held out as long as I could stand it! :)  Here are my
> >thoughts, based on my legal practice and experience as owner of a small
> >outdoor sporting goods store:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >I do not mean to judge anyone here; only to suggest not judging quite so
> >sharply and publicly on the list where there are criminal and legal
> >overtones.
> 
> Clark -
> You make some good points - but you also overlook a couple.
> 
> In '92 there was a character on the Trail who hiked (a little), yellow
> blazed (a lot), spent a LOT of time in towns (specifically - in the bars)
> ---- and stiffed a whole lot of hostels and other service providers.  There
> wasn't a good communication network between service providers at that time
> (and obviously still isn't) - except in Maine.  So that's how far he got
> before the cops came looking for him - Maine.
> 
> How much ill will did he leave behind for the rest of us to deal with?  I'd
> bet that you dealt with some of it when you hiked.
> 
> It's not bad enough that he did that to the AT and the thruhikers who
> followed him - he did it again a year or so later on the PCT and left a
> trail of crap along the Left Coast as well.
> 
> There are people who are chronic offenders - and they need to be stopped -
> for their own sake as well as for the sake of the community.
> 
> I don't know about you, but if there's a way to stop this latest
> manifestation, I think earlier is better.  Forgiveness is wonderful, but as
> someone once told me - forgiveness without remorse is self-deception.
> 
> As for the "general description" -- I don't think so.  Saying that he's
> 5'11", dirty with a dark beard and a pack just puts 90% of the male
> thruhikers under automatic suspicion - for no conceivable reason.  A
> specific description is a necessity. Name and address (and bank account #)
> in addition is even better.  Like nearly everything else - vague
> descriptions are useless, misleading and create more problems.
> 
> I think it's time for us to quit playing with this thing and get Jensine
> phone numbers of the service providers both north and south of Rainbow
> Springs so when (not if) this happens again, she can spread the word for
> them to look out for him.
> 
> So - for Jensine - If you don't have a copy of the book, ALDHA's
> "Appalachian Trail Thru-hiker's Companion" is online at:
> http://www.aldha.org/comp_pdf.htm
> 
> The Companion has phone numbers of the main service providers along the
> Trail. Personally, I'd suggest that you talk to those other service
> providers and set up a phone tree so when this kind of thing happens (and it
> does, even if it's not widely known) you can talk to each other and pass
> information along the Trail. But that would have to be your decision - and
> your action.
> 
> Finally - for Clark - I find it bizarre that you implied that if a man
> stiffs me like that, it's not legal for me to tell him "pay up or I'll
> prosecute".  It eliminates the possibility of giving him the opportunity to
> correct an honest mistake and leaves prosecution as the only recourse.
> Legal or not - I consider that to be nonsense.  Did I misunderstand that?
> 
> Walk softly,
> Jim
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> >From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l