Rafters get citation in Mexico

[presidio]

But, when the government files a civil suit against a citizen, the government must give up its right to sovereign immunity.  This means Mr. Bowden and party could file a counter suit against the park service, which could, presumably, involve the fact that NPS has set stupid rules as terms for a permit.

As previously noted, this is not a civil issue, but a criminal one. He is charged with violating the terms and conditions of his permit. All Mr. Bowden has to do is deny the charge (plead 'not guilty')  and go to trial, where the NPS will be compelled to demonstrate how it is they think they have jurisdiction.

  I do hope Mr. Bowden exercises his rights.

Me too. He will win. I suspect that if he contests the charge it never will go to trial, but will be dismissed at either the request of the NPS or certainly by the first US attorney to see the case they would have to present on behalf of the amateur police. That would be too bad as such an outcome will not solve anything but Mr. Bowden's particular problem. The NPS would skate as they would not have their actions examined or have to answer for them, thus leaving them unrestrained to do this to someone else.

[presidio]

Suppose I rent a car in the US.  As part of the rental agreement there is a provision that I do not drive the rented car into Mexico.  I break the agreement and drive the car into Mexico anyway and somehow the car rental agency discovers what I did.  Does the car rental agency have grounds to keep my deposit, even though the violation of the agreement happened in a foreign country?

Your example involves a business not a law enforcement agency. And, the example is of a true contract, not a criminally enforceable set of rules. Civil law and criminal law are two entirely separate things.

What you are describing is a failure to remain in the US with the private property of a commercial entity, so I would say, yes, the rental company may keep your deposit since you failed to comply with the terms of the contract. In other words, you have taken something you don't own somewhere you were not allowed to go by the owner. You don't like that? Then you can file a civil suit against the company.

That is a far cry different from lawfully being present in Mexico and someone in the US deciding you are violating a permit written in the US. Contractually, with the car, you are not lawfully present in Mexico. A river permit does not prevent you from entering Mexico, so the issue is whether the permit restrictions can be criminally enforced outside (a key concept here) the park. Once again, there is no jurisdiction for criminal enforcement by the NPS in Mexico, nor any for anywhere outside the park.

[presidio]

And, lest anyone be confused about there being a substantial legal difference between civil and criminal issues, remember the first OJ Simpson case.

He was acquitted of premeditated murder (which the evidence in a badly bungled prosecution still strongly suggested was true).

However, he was found liable (you don't have 'convictions') in the civil case that followed for wrongful death.

Two cases, same evidence, different outcomes. Why? Well, the standard in a criminal case is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'. Such doubt was introduced by the media circus and the poor performance of the prosecution, and some incredibly poor evidence handling. The standard in a civil case is a 'preponderance of evidence', meaning one only has to show it is more likely that he did it than not....in other words if the plaintiff (there is no 'prosecution' in a civil case) can convince a jury the claim is only 50.1% true vs. 49.9% false, the civil case is won. Normally, it isn't that close, but that is all that has to be met.

These standards of proof also are why no civil case ever precedes a criminal one. If you can't win the civil case, there is no way you will win the criminal one. Obviously, as proven in the OJ case and all other civil suits, the reverse is not true. Winning a criminal case does make it much more likely to win if there is a subsequent civil one, but they each stand on their own merits.

[Lorax]

Currently, the US borders are closed.  The permit for river use simply allows river runners to camp on either side of the Rio.  If you accept this permit, you accept its stipulations.  Pack out your wastes, use a fire pan.  This permit process save folks from always camping on their side of the river.

I'm no lawyer, but I do like to find the wilderness wild.  If he didn't pick up after himself, he should pay his fine and quit whining.  If he violated no regulations, he should fight the citation.

[presidio]

Currently, the US borders are closed.  The permit for river use simply allows river runners to camp on either side of the Rio. 

The oxymoronity of this is wonderful.

If you accept this permit, you accept its stipulations.  Pack out your wastes, use a fire pan.  This permit process save folks from always camping on their side of the river.

I remain dumbfounded at the thought processes on this issue. How can it be so hard to understand that the NPS does not (and cannot) permit or deny anything beyond their boundary? They DO tacitly encourage use of the Mexican side by the wording on their river webpage, but if they 'only had a brain' (the true province of the Scarecrow...Wizard of Oz) they would say nothing about it. But, of course, they do say something about it...maybe as recognition they don't have any control, but more likely in the attempt to buffalo unsuspecting tourists into believing the agency actually has the ability to enforce on the far side of the river (and the Far Side of reality).

I'm no lawyer, but I do like to find the wilderness wild.  If he didn't pick up after himself, he should pay his fine and quit whining.

This will be hard for some to grasp, but any river runner could leave the most incredible mess you ever saw on the Mexican side of the river and the NPS can do nothing about it.

I know what the problem is. People don't want to recognize and reconcile that the application of law can be (and is, in this case) at odds with what folks want to believe is true. This is a situation where some demand that everyone play nice and when they, don't they don't care that the legal process will not accommodate the aberration. Sorry, there has to be an underlying authority for the action and in this case there is none.

[homerboy2u]

........ ...Presidiooooooo....your fotoooos,remember?.

[presidio]

........ ...Presidiooooooo....your fotoooos,remember?.

Ahem...I am currently in travel mode for the next month or so....no access to my photos (which are being dutifully backed up by Carbonite in my absence).

[RichardM]

........ ...Presidiooooooo....your fotoooos,remember?.

Ahem...I am currently in travel mode for the next month or so....no access to my photos (which are being dutifully backed up by Carbonite in my absence).

Nice to know they're safe....even if no one ever gets to see them....

[presidio]

........ ...Presidiooooooo....your fotoooos,remember?.

Ahem...I am currently in travel mode for the next month or so....no access to my photos (which are being dutifully backed up by Carbonite in my absence).

Nice to know they're safe....even if no one ever gets to see them....

Think of them like the Hope Diamond....brought out on rare occasions.