Cutting off Utah Territory from Mail Service

[Programmer]

The disconnect between this:

We have got to be called treasoners by our enemies. Joseph was taken up six times, if I remember rightly, on the charge of treason. Once he was brought into court by some enemies who thought they could prove that he had committed adultery, and that they termed treason. At another time our brethren wanted to vote in Davies County, Missouri, and said they would cast their votes and have their rights with other citizens; whereupon Joseph was taken up for treason. Another time, he was taken up on a charge of high treason; and when he came before the grand jury, his enemies wanted to prove that he had more than one wife, asserting that that was high treason.

Our enemies are constantly yelling "Rebellion! Treason!" no matter how peaceful, orderly, and loyal we may be. And now to come out in open opposition to their cursed, corrupt practices, will of course be counted treason. But let me tell you that the real, actual treason is committed in Washington, by the administrators of our Government sending an army to take the lives of innocent citizens. Every man is allowed by the Constitution to have what religion he pleases. That liberty is guaranteed by the Constitution; "but you,

[Confidential Informant]

Rollo, it's obvious that you haven''t the slightest clue what your talking about.

1. I know what amnesty means. I know where the power comes from. Moreover, I know and have cited to Supreme Court decision that support this view. You have bathered on with your opinion of what these things mean without providing a scintilla of supporting material.

2. As previously noted, this was an amnesty, not a pardon (though it was labeled as such) and as an amnesty could only "forget" because there was no crime charged or convicted which could be "forgiven."

The word "amnesty" derives from the Greek amnestia, which means forgetfulness. It connotes that the offender's crime has been overlooked ("forgotten") because to do so benefits society (more than the punishment of the crime would).

This is great and wonderful. It's also completely irrlevant. What is relevant is U.S. case law and how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitutional pardon power. I already gave you the cite from the U.S. Supreme Court which states exactly how the term "Amnesty" is used in U.S. Jurisprudence. It clearly states that an amnesty is given in recognition that a crime "might" have been committed. That's it.

Young's acceptance of the amnesty did not, and legally could not, have represented a guilty plea. At most, it represented an acceptance by Young of the charges that "might" have been brought with no conclusion as to how a jury might have found.

Hit the law books, young man, and come back when you're better prepared.

Funny, especially when you consider that everyone on this list with any law training that has looked at this thread has agreed with me. But if unilateral declaration of victory make you feel better, have at it.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Oops I caught you re-interpretting history again Rollo. Page 438 in Volume 4 of Comprehensive History of the Church, Brigham Young says: "...the statement in writing ... is, in substance a correct synoptical statement fo what WAS SAID in said conference; ..."

He admitted even there to no such treason. And if you go further back on the page you will find in the document which Brigham Young did attest to:

1. Brigham Young even invited someone, anyone to make an investigation into any, ANY "charges that had been made against the people of Utah, ..."

2. "they denied ALL charges that had been made against them, except the burning of the army trains..."

There's no "oops." I've stated several times in this thread that before the Peace Commission BY denied the factual statements in the Proclamation (except the burning of army trains and scattering army cattle); but the Proclamation was not changed, and BY had to accept it as is to get the pardon. This he did. He can raise all the objections he wants, and protest what's in the Proclamation (as he did before the Commission), but in the end, he accepted the Proclamation because he had no real choice (if he wanted the pardon).

[Confidential Informant]

The Proclamation did not say treason "may" have been committed; it said treason "was" committed (saying Utah citizens are "in the guilt of treason"). And BY accepted this Proclamation as written (even though he didn't agree with it); hence, his acceptance included these statements of his treason.

Then as such the document was illegal as it represented a violation of due process rights.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

1. I know what amnesty means. I know where the power comes from. Moreover, I know and have cited to Supreme Court decision that support this view. You have bathered on with your opinion of what these things mean without providing a scintilla of supporting material.

...

2. As previously noted, this was an amnesty, not a pardon (though it was labeled as such) and as an amnesty could only "forget" because there was no crime charged or convicted which could be "forgiven."

...

The word "amnesty" derives from the Greek amnestia, which means forgetfulness. It connotes that the offender's crime has been overlooked ("forgotten") because to do so benefits society (more than the punishment of the crime would).

This is great and wonderful. It's also completely irrlevant. What is relevant is U.S. case law and how the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitutional pardon power. I already gave you the cite from the U.S. Supreme Court which states exactly how the term "Amnesty" is used in U.S. Jurisprudence. It clearly states that an amnesty is given in recognition that a crime "might" have been committed. That's it.

Young's acceptance of the amnesty did not, and legally could not, have represented a guilty plea. At most, it represented an acceptance by Young of the charges that "might" have been brought with no conclusion as to how a jury might have found.

...

Funny, especially when you consider that everyone on this list with any law training that has looked at this thread has agreed with me. But if unilateral declaration of victory make you feel better, have at it.

You clearly have misunderstood the term "amnesty" and what it means. The very meaning of the word is "forgetfulness," like its sister word "amnesia." It doesn't mean there is no crime, just that the crime is forgotten. And I don't think anyone here has agreed with your concept and definition of "amnesty." Hmm, wonder why ....

[Confidential Informant]

I've stated several times in this thread that before the Peace Commission BY denied the factual statements in the Proclamation (except the burning of army trains and scattering army cattle); but the Proclamation was not changed, and BY had to accept it as is to get the pardon.

Which should be your first clue that admission of guilt was NOT a condition of the amnesty. If it was, then the commission had no business granting it since Young clearly did not accept the terms of the amnesty. The ONLY condition was a future submission to federal authority. That's it and that's exactly what Cummings said.

C.I.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Then as such the document was illegal as it represented a violation of due process rights.

Brigham didn't have to accept it; he could have refused to accept the Proclamation, and the statements and conditions therein, and then demanded due process to have his day in court and clear his name. But he didn't.

[Programmer]

Oops I caught you re-interpretting history again Rollo. Page 438 in Volume 4 of Comprehensive History of the Church, Brigham Young says: "...the statement in writing ... is, in substance a correct synoptical statement fo what WAS SAID in said conference; ..."

He admitted even there to no such treason. And if you go further back on the page you will find in the document which Brigham Young did attest to:

1. Brigham Young even invited someone, anyone to make an investigation into any, ANY "charges that had been made against the people of Utah, ..."

2. "they denied ALL charges that had been made against them, except the burning of the army trains..."

There's no "oops." I've stated several times in this thread that before the Peace Commission BY denied the factual statements in the Proclamation (except the burning of army trains and scattering army cattle); but the Proclamation was not changed, and BY had to accept it as is to get the pardon. This he did. He can raise all the objections he wants, and protest what's in the Proclamation (as he did before the Commission), but in the end, he accepted the Proclamation because he had no real choice (if he wanted the pardon).

Big Deal: Yet you still went on in post after post trying to equate accepting the pardon as a guilty plea of Treason. Honestly now, that just not right.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Which should be your first clue that admission of guilt was NOT a condition of the amnesty. If it was, then the commission had no business granting it since Young clearly did not accept the terms of the amnesty. The ONLY condition was a future submission to federal authority. That's it and that's exactly what Cummings said.

His objections and protests were noted in the official "minutes" of the Commission (which he certified). He didn't have to accept the Proclamation as written, but he did of his own volition.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Big Deal: Yet you still went on in post after post trying to equate accepting the pardon as a guilty plea of Treason. Honestly now, that just not right.

I didn't "equate" anything -- Governor Cumming is the one who decreed that Brigham accepted the Proclamation and "its prescribed terms." Blame him.

[gtaggart]

The document in question merely laid out the crimes which "may" have been committed and for which the amnesty was being issued.  Again, if you wish to amend your argument to a claim that Young's acceptance of the amnesty represented a recognition on his part that he "might" have been charged with the crimes described, I suppose I can accept that because it's clear that the Gov't could have brought the charges.  Whether they could have made them out and gotten a conviciton is another question, but I can certainly see Young agree to the statement that the gov't could have charged him with them.

The Proclamation did not say treason "may" have been committed; it said treason "was" committed (saying Utah citizens are "in the guilt of treason"). And BY accepted this Proclamation as written (even though he didn't agree with it); hence, his acceptance included these statements of his treason.

And I'm in denial.

The one and only "prescribed term" for the "pardon" was that Utah submit to the US Govt.'s authority. You have not and cannot show otherwise irrespective of your repetitious and ridiculous attempts to do otherwise.

By the way, I hit the law books (Black's Law Dictionary, revised 4th edition to be specific) and found the following under "pardon":

"The distinction between amnesty and pardon is one rather of philogical interest than of legal importance . . . Amnesty is ususally general, addressed to classes or even communities . . . 'Pardon' applies only to the individual . . ."

[Confidential Informant]

You clearly have misunderstood the term "amnesty" and what it means. The very meaning of the word is "forgetfulness," like its sister word "amnesia." It doesn't mean there is no crime, just that the crime is forgotten.

Keep trying Rollo, the Supreme Court agrees with me.

Amnesty is the abolition and forgetfulness of the offense; -- Garrison v. U.S., 30 Ct.Cl. 272,

You keep insisting that amnesty is simply forgetfulness. Not so, as the Supreme Court clearly recognized, under U.S. law amnesty represent two things 1. Aboltion and 2. Forgetfulness.

How can you plead guilty to a crime that 1. was never charged. 2. Has been abolished?

You cannot.

However, the acceptance of a Pardon does represent a plea of guilty. Ex parte Law

6 Am. Law Reg. (N.S.) 410 D.C.Ga. (1866). But because an amnesty is given prior to charges or indictment, it does not require an admission of guilt. See also U.S. v. Padelford, 76 U.S. 531 (1869)("Amnesty' may, perhaps, have a wider effect than pardon, and wipe out the evidence of the fact, so that it could not be alleged and proved by another, to the prejudice of the party amnestied.")

And I don't think anyone here has agreed with your concept and definition of "amnesty."  Hmm, wonder why ....

USU and RCrockett are both attorneys and both have tacitly agreed with what I have stated here.

C.I.

That's it for me. I've really got to get some "real" work done today.

ci

[Bertram]

LEGAL TERMINOLOGY!

Now that I have a Gaggle of Lawyers on the Board maybe you could interpret this for a sceptical non-member friend of mine?

He asked me :

..If the American Constitution was inspired of God, why does it have so many Amendments?

From what goes on this and similar threads we do seem to have non-legal proclomations in abundance!

Is it any wonder Lawyers make a mint!

[gtaggart]

Which should be your first clue that admission of guilt was NOT a condition of the amnesty.  If it was, then the commission had no business granting it since Young clearly did not accept the terms of the amnesty.  The ONLY condition was a future submission to federal authority.  That's it and that's exactly what Cummings said.

His objections and protests were noted in the official "minutes" of the Commission (which he certified). He didn't have to accept the Proclamation as written, but he did of his own volition.

There you go again. Where did Brigham Young "accept the proclamation"? Your loose and reckless interpretations won't do. Where did Brigham "accept the proclamation"? He accepted the pardon, and by his own words, would have had it been issued by a Martian.

[Bob Crockett]

However, the acceptance of a Pardon does represent a plea of guilty. Ex parte Law

6 Am. Law Reg. (N.S.) 410 D.C.Ga. (1866). But because an amnesty is given prior to charges or indictment, it does not require an admission of guilt.

You are indeed correct. A few points.

The literature, and I myself, call Cumming's transmission of Buchanan's proclamation, a "pardon." But it really wasn't. A pardon, at least in the 19th century, required first a conviction. John D. Lee was offered a pardon, after his conviction.

When Nixon was pardoned, it created a firestorm because he hadn't been convicted. But nobody took up the challenge with an indictment.

rcrocket

[Dunamis]

Thread closed at request of its originator.