Re: Mark Rey Letter
- From: Sanity <sanity-clause@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 06:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
On May 29, 1:44 am, Blue <rainbowblue_rf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 9:45 pm, Old Tom <rascal...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 9:16 pm, Blue <rainbowblue_rf...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 7:44 pm, Old Tom <rascal...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 7:27 pm, kinda <megate...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 28, 7:17 pm, "Karin Zirk" <kz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So Mark Rey wrote a letter outlining the USFS stance towards this year's
I put a PDF version and a TIF version up athttp://home.earthlink..net/~scrollinfo/wyoming.html
which is on USDA letter head with Rey's signature.
I think I'm happy about this. I mean, somebody might come along and
prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm happy about this.
I'm not - though I am no more unhappy than previously.
While the requirement for a signed permit is being waived for an
alternate method, the standard Non-Commercial Group Special Use
regulations that cover the gather are still in force. This means the
event is being considered a private gathering rathering than a public
event. And like all other private events held under the NGU
regulations, the Forest Service has determined that THEY can suspend
our individual civil rights protections under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Just like at a private wedding, it's private and not just anyone can
go. That's why civil rights protections aren't applicable at private
events. The NGU rules say the gather isn't for everybelly.
The Forest Service should not be able to suspend any of our civil
rights protections just because they lack the rules and regulations
for a public event on public land. THEIR failure to protect our
rights is a result of their trying to squeeze the definition of a
gathering into the pigeon hole for a private event by a private
group. They currently have no other rules that could apply. It is
their failure of policy but it is your/my/our loss of rights. A
Public Event on Public Land!!
Protest. Protest. Protest. What better way to celebrate FREEDOM.
Protest. Protest. Protest
(This has been a public service announcement coutesy of Old Tom)
Yes, Tom and policy, which you mentioned, is quite different from law
and the government has been challenged on this premise somewhat
successfully. The only way to retain the rights guaranteed are to
stand for them. The Government shall not limit (abridge) the right to
free assembly. Period.
I myself had more than a little problem with the thinking I heard Mr.
Rey put forth in the last phone conference, in relation to there being
no more problems on their end with law enforcement if... site
notification was nailed down as soon as possible.
I can almost see this kind of veiled threats being used in relation to
court cases but physical intimidation on the land is a different thing
altogether. Hopefully, enough Light has been shed to direct more
oversight and prevent further LEO abuses. Hopefully, Mr. Rey will
continue to speak from the heart on these matters and address them
logistically for the benefit of all concerned. But don't hold your
LEO oversight is a most pressing issue and needs to continue to be
tended to. The rest (the permit-which I am against) is wrapped up in
the FS' attempts to try to find a way to enclose and control. Permit,
accommodation, etc...Control. They cannot diminish us by any other
blue- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
My discussion and issue are focused on civil rights, particularly
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. This is a completely separate issue and concern
unrelated to any Constitutional Rights such as the right of Assembly.
I am unaware of any litigation or relevant legal determinations on
failure to comply with civil rights legislation by USFS - if you do I
could use them. Last August I file a Program Discrimination Complaint
against the USFS with the Office of Civil Rights of the US Department
Civil rights are enforceable rights which if interfered with give rise
to an action for injury. Some civil rights are freedom of speech,
press, and assembly. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has at it's
foundation the Constitution but I understand your point.
As it stands the Gummint steamrolls rights, the public has to play
dung beetle and push the shit up hill for any recompense for injuries,
payment is made with tax dollars and the perpetraitors of the
iniquities get promoted. No, the Constitution describes a paradigm
which has never been followed, there has always been an emergency to
take care of first for well over two hundred years. It's all hype and
policy handed down from a de facto Titled Nobility couched under
"Voting decides nothing. Counting the ballots decides everything." -
"Stop counting those votes!" - US Supreme Court, 2000 AD
The web of deception unravels and the con is becoming transparent.
And yes, I admire your avenue there, working the discrimination by
government agencies that receive federal funding end of things. I am
learning more everyday.
As far as specific case law, I was speaking in more or less general
terms, about the ability to challenge government "policy" in court. I
know of some cases unrelated to the issues mentioned here, which i
will try to find for you in my files.
- Prev by Date: Need Ride to 2008 National Gathering In Wyoming
- Next by Date: Re: rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Mark Rey Letter
- Next by thread: Re: Mark Rey Letter