...A Post-Trial Report based on a First-Hand Review of the Proceedings
Police Presence --
Participant Profiles --
Targeting "Leaders" --
Defendant Foreknowledge and Intent --
The Draft Permit --
* Land and Uses
* Constitutional Caveat
* Bureaucraps & the New World Odor
[1 The same provisions appeared in the permit issued simultaneously (6/18) for the July '96 Gathering in the Ozarks, almost verbatim. That permit was then nullified by the Council AND the Holder during the Gathering.]
[2 "...the Department has established three significant
interests in promulgating this rule: (1) Protection of forest
resources and facilities; (2) promotion of public health and
safety; and (3) allocation of space in the face of greater
competition for the use of National Forest System lands."
[Federal Register, V.60/No.168, 8/30/95; pg. 45262]]
[3 Officer Stribling's statements dwelled briefly on the meadow as a wildlife area, and its importance as an "edge" condition in the local ecosystem. This is a generic truism, saying really nothing to establish that this particular meadow in the woods was especially sensitive. However this testimony served a strategic scam: Posting the site as a "Wildlife Area" invokes more stringent impact standards, and creates a pretext for the heavy official presence and close oversight of gathering activities.]
[4 The idea that this rulemaking violates NEPA is not news... this was a key argument in the policy analysis presented by PCU//Free Assembly Project in December '93 ("Group Use Rules for National Forest Lands -- A LEGAL & LAND USE REVIEW"). It addressed the specific NEPA guidelines in the Forest Service Manual, how they should exempt gatherings from regulation, and why this is not an "environmental" policy at all.]
[5 The Forest Service quietly published proposed amendments on "Law enforcement support activities [&] Prohibitions" on 2/16/94; it took a month for word to get around, then the clamor rose fast: The 60-day comment period had to be extended, thousands of opposing letters came in, and Senator Baucus called them "a bunch of busybody Beltway bureaucrats run amok." By the final day of comments (5/18/94) Chief Thomas announced that it would "not proceed to a final rule", but they would rework the proposal and try again.]