Worthy Assay (thanks sca)

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:03:00 -0500
From: "scottie a." <sca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Regional Gatherings and the USFS
To: Karin Zirk <kzirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: agr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <p06240808c2d34d79be96@[12.74.140.13]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

waylate 29jy07, and beyond

Just a few clarifications & addenda --

Karin sed:

Recently, some folks in New Mexico focalized a regional gathering.
For reasons I am in the dark on, they chose not to
try to utilize the method used for the Annual Gathering in
Arkansas (working with resource people ahead of time to
find a site that met the needs of Rainbow and the USFS
in order to avoid the permit requirement and have the ability
to work out an unsigned operating plan).

Consider the caveats...
-- Very few people were involved in the 'Rainbow
Accommodation' in Arkansas, or knew of the
elements & limits of the deal. Info & discussion
on-site were minimal... many folks thought the
'Permit' thang was over, had no clue that Rey's
"experiment" was for this Annual Gathering only
-- especially the Road Kidz.
-- The sense of many in Arkansas was that the
deal didn't work as a peace measure anyway, since
LEO's landed on the gathering with both feet
regardless of the postures in DC.
-- The "Operation Plan" in Arkansas was a
surrogate for a Permit, still engaging the
"Rainbow Family" as a group obligated to its
terms... so what's the difference?
-- The Kidz tend to figger that the Elders/High
Holies handle this stuff, because they hate this
bull*** and they have never been included in
strategic discussions.
-- Same old Trap: Folks arrive on-site to START
dealing with the situation, and wake up with more
than 75 unknown people around them in the area,
and everybody ALREADY in violation, just like the
cops planned it.

*******************Begin forwarded message FROM
GARRICK*****************
* * * * *
Even so, there were a bunch of last minute
dialogues. No question if there had been more
time, we could have steered the event into legal
territory. As it was, first the leo?s issued
tickets, maybe about 25 of them, folks scattered
into the woods and the leo?s gave everybody an
hour [it was late in the day] to leave, an
eviction order.

The next day they came back and arrested a total
of nine people. All people who had gotten tix
the day before; and they gave out about 25 more
tickets and they blocked the road turning
everyone who came up there away. This wasn?t a
checkpoint. This was a closure, period.

I spoke again with Deputy Supervisor Dan
Rael Friday afternoon. He reported 11 arrests
Friday: 10 on unspecified Fed charges, and those
folks were transported to the detention center in
Bernalillo (N. of Albuquerque) for arraignment
Saturday morning. One (1) other person was
arrested on State charges by Sheriff officers of
Rio Arriba County, and taken to jail in Tierra
Amarilla (I believe), the county seat. I called
John McCall in Albuquerque to notify him of this,
and he followed up with calls to track the
situation the next day.

Problem: Don't take this bizness of
arrests and site closure for granted. The
original 'Group Use' rule publications did not
contemplate such outcomes... in fact, it was
stated that a court order would be required to
remove people from public land if no permit was
signed, as a last resort. And in the early era
of citing alleged 'Leaders', there was no notion
of arresting anyone on the spot, much less
evicting everyone in the area.

The change came with I.C. Malcolm Jowers
with his mass-citation tactics and other rude
moves since Feb. '01 at Ocala -- and the Feds'
loose construction of the 'Johnson Test' (Katuah
trials, Oct. '96, 3rd Circuit ruling Oct. '98)
and the Masel ruling (Aug.'99) -- making
Everybody guilty for what Somebody did not do, a
bizarre distortion of basic criminal law.
Next came the closures at the Arizona regional
(March '02) and the Annual Rainbow Gathering in
Michigan (June '02). This had not been done
before, nor was this identified as a possible
course of administrative action upon an alleged
misdemeanor violation.
It finally devolved to the blockade of the Glady
Forks site in WVa (June '05), before people could
get in (no thanks to Jeff Kline's disclosures to
the Feds in DC) -- an unprecedented action to
exclude the public from public land, based on the
permit requirement that is unmeetable for such
gatherers.

So let's get real: Folks in NM did
nothing that was not always lawful before --
camping and cooperating in the National Forest.
The crisis arises in the flaws of the 'Group Use'
regulation, the escalations of law enforcement
and usurpations of new powers. Challenges to
date have been most difficult due to the unique
circumstances of the gatherings, their
remoteness, transience, lack of resources, and
the aversions of hippies to any such legaloid
crap.

It is dangerous now to buy into such
tactics... they remain extraordinary under law,
discriminatory and extremist as agency policy.
If 'peace moves' seek temporary, discretionary
relief from harassment and leave these powers in
place, the price is too high.

SP ? who was in town, then met with the deputy
forest supervisor and gave the FS an application
for special use, Not a permit application,
technically, because he offered no
name-of-person-who-will-sign-on-behalf-of-anybody.
He did give a contact person name, but didn?t
sign the application for special use on the line
at the bottom. The Deputy Forest Supervisor [who
was the district ranger during the very sweet nm
1995 annual rainbow] told Sp he couldn?t accept
the application because even it wasn?t signed.

That was on Thursday nite, after the first
ticketing, but before people were arrested and
the road blocked.

It was Thursday afternoon when SP went in
and left an unsigned Application. I learned of
this when I spoke with Dan Rael shortly
thereafter, and told him that SP was
fundamentally correct in doing so -- showing good
faith in notifying the FS and seeking
authorization of a special use, but legally
unable to represent or sign for a "group" as
defined in the FS-2700-3b Permit.
it was a good talk, I gave him the whole spiel:
Above & beyond any philosophical creed or
'Rainbow beliefs' in non-hierarchy, it is a legal
FACT that no such "group" exists; the controversy
persists because the Permit rule was always a
trap for the gatherings, and the
cops-lawyers-judges were too mean-stupid-drunk to
get it.

We also discussed the meaning of the
accommodation in Arkansas -- not that it worked
that well, but it confirmed that the NGU Permit
is not the only option: FS line officers have
the authority and discretion to invoke an
'alternative manner of regulation' if needed,
from the USDA Undersecretary on down, including
HIM. Moreover, it is not the place of LEO's to
foreclose such discretion and preempt FS
authority... so I was on HIS side, and HE should
make such decisions on applied policy.

Maybe this encouraged Dan to do so.

The next afternoon Sp went back to the Forest
Supervisor?s office and signed the application
for special use, still leaving the place for Who
would sign a Permit marked ?Not Applicable? and
attaching documentation about why this goes
against our creed.

Deputy Supervisor Dan Rael said they would
consider this; and began drawing up an Operating
Plan for use. Still, he indicated that he needed
approval from ?upstairs? to allow this. After Sp
phoned me about this, I called the D.C. offices
and mapped out the whole story-thus-far as best
I could. They said they would consider this and
call Deputy Supervisor Rael and call me back too.

Cool... but the guy you called in D.C.
was John Twiss, Director of USFS Law Enforcement
& Investigations -- precisely the Wrong Guy to
bring into any determination on Forest Service
policy. He DID call Dan Rael, as you asked, but
left word that there was NO DEAL beyond Arkansas,
the permit requirement remained in effect, and
the Supervisor's office in Carson N.F. had NO
discretion in the matter. Legally wrong,
politically twisted -- but what did you expect
from that ***?

I also spoke with head LEO Poncho Smith
today (now Monday, 7/30)... he noted that nobody
would sign a Permit OR the Operating Plan, so
this never took effect, and it remained an
"illegal gathering". In other words, the OpPlan
is still a legal instrument, requiring a
signature for a Group -- and without this, the
whole thing is a police matter... same as it ever
was.

The result: LEO's stopped the assembly
in New Mexico -- busted it, shut it down, and
scared everyone off. Reportedly the numbers
dropped below 75 by Saturday, and moves toward an
OpPlan accommodation failed and went moot. Those
remaining on-site are cleaning up... District
Ranger Ben Romero paid a cordial visit today, was
pleased with the progress, and will go back
Wednesday to rap things up. Then it will be over
-- except for the prosecutions... same as it ever
was.

Can I say this again? We could try to use an
application for special use coupled with an
operating plan (instead of a signature on a
permit) as an alternative to either civil
disobedience or a permit. I believe Forest
Supervisors? offices may be given the green
light to go ahead with this.

Can I say THIS again?...
Yes, Notice by application and a Plan stating
performance standards are essential elements of
an "alternative" compliance model, ***: Using
the 'Group Use' form inextricably engages a
'Group', and the OpPlan is still a legal
instrument that obligates that 'Group' party, as
currently applied.

The Regs are still emphatically upheld by the
Feds, and nothing substantial is gained merely by
the symbolic waiver of the permit signature. The
accommodation in Arkansas was a transient,
discretionary move -- not a committed policy
change -- and in New Mexico the Forest Supervisor
was given a red light on this approach. However
it was effective in dividing us, and defusing
legal action for real remedies.

REMEMBER THE AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS BY THE LEOS IN
ARK WERE DESIGNED TO GET US TO REJECT THE
OPERATING PLAN AS A SOLUTION. WE ARE PLAYING
INTO THEIR HANDS BY SEEING THE ROUGH LEO
BEHAVIOR IN ARK AS THE WHOLE PICTURE.
................

So I pass this along to Colorado as an idea,
that someone could give an application like sp
did in nm this past week; or like plunker did in
mt 2000; and use the operating plan in place of
the signature.

The counter-incentives of LEI are
understood, but their motives in Arkansas don't
logically go to gatherers' attitude toward the
solution. By design, their actions were more
about directly disrupting the solution, and
asserting their independent authority to conduct
whatever law enforcement tactics they want, apart
from and above any policy postures in the Forest
Service.

The medium is the message... the "whole
picture" still poses a duality/split in the
missions & methods of cops and foresters, and the
mobius conundrum of who's running the show.
Rey's move IS significant, if only to confirm
administrative authority to regulate by other
means. Legally, this is a valid position and
point of leverage... politically, the ability of
the agency to use this authority is clearly
diminished and preempted by police powers.

Never ever talk to cops about policy...
it's none of their fucking business.

As for Colorado, a better solution may be in the works... stay
'tooned.

Then Barry notes --

COMMENT ON DIRECT ACTION:

IF people are going to engage in DIRECT
ACTION i.e. assemble without notification and
then defend the rights of the people to assemble
then any such individual/s should, in fact, be
clear in what they are engaged in... i.e.
DIRECT ACTION usually entails action, then
face-off with authorities, then "(civil
disobedience) civil obedience" meaning to the
First Amendment, Constitution... Note: also,
usually, it means that people thus engaged agree
on tactics of non-violence, mutual massive
arrests, court movies, etc... Direct Action is
or can be very POSITIVE....
* * * * *
Direct Action calls for moral and personal
courage... and firing up people to jump into a
situation without the information concerning
what is likely to happen is something else...

Very true in principle -- and arguably
Barry, Garrick, and others who have taken tickets
did so conscientiously in this spirit, at least
trying to be ready for the ensuing fight.
Unfortunately under this bizarre regulation
as-applied, the Kidz cited en masse don't get to
make that choice... it lands in their laps even
when they think they're OK, and they're
definitely NOT ready to deal with it. The West
Virginia busts & tribunals were a classic, tragic
example -- painful to watch, and extraordinarily
difficult to help. I've surely tried.

As things stand, with a stack of bad
rulings on the Regs, the meaning of Direct Action
is a bit skewed: If it's a symbolic act of
defiance to affirm basic rights, no matter what
the Courts say, you can do the time or pay for
the crime and walk away. Don't bother to raise
the same defenses as before, arguing your beliefs
or the 'Rainbow Creed'... you will lose, res
adjudicata. The effect is dubious: Public
sympathies are saturated with other concerns,
remote from these struggles, and no groundswells
of public support have made a dent yet. As for
the Feds, they don't mind taking your time and/or
money, and piling up stats & warrants on
prosecutions.

On the other hand, if you intend to WIN,
Direct Action assumes a big burden now, to set up
the right facts and good new arguments, and to
carry it through. It takes heavier homework and
smarter positions than ever, more courage, and
stout self-discipline. This kind of resistance
is what's needed -- the only kind I havet time &
energy for now.

"This ain't no party, it ain'tr no disco,
this ain't no foolin' around...".

_sca__

.

Quantcast