**ALERT*Forest Service NEW Regs!!!*ALERT** Please Distribute AFAP (As Far/Fast As Possible!) Public Comment Deadline: 18 April 1994 WRITE SOON!!!! SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS TO: Jack Ward Thomas, Chief (5300) Forest Service, USDA P.0. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090 Please send copies of your letter to: 1st Amendment Volunteers c/o PO Box 5448, Evanston, IL 60204-5448 We will keep a record of these for possible congressional action. ************************************** *** NEW FOREST SERVICE RULES PROPOSED... NEW POLICE POWERS TO COME DOWN IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS *** "LAW ENFORCEMENT" AMENDMENTS, 36 CFR Parts 261, 262 {Federal Register, V. 59, No. 32, pp.7880-92; 2/16/94} [[The new regs were reviewed in a 3/17 Council in Madison, and this analysis was written as a summary for first distribution at a 3/19 Circle there. Understand that this is a quick first look at the issues, scanned & lightly edited for Network info. It is a useful introduction, but don't take it to be complete or definitive... Much research remains to be done, all are encouraged to plug in knowledge & ideas. -- We Love You... DH, LS, SA, BW, LT, RS, & Friends.]] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- You heard of "FRANKENREGS"... The 'Group Use' amendments were proposed in the Federal Register in May '93, which would make it a crime to assemble peaceably and exercise First Amendment freedoms without a permit. Public comments were received through 8/4/93, and the review is nearly complete; publication of the revised rule is expected in May, and it could be in effect by July '94. We are still fighting to stop it. Now they got "SON OF FRANKENREGS"... New provisions were proposed in the 2/16/94 Federal Register, amending 36 CFR s261/262 (pp. 7888-7892). The Forest Service wants their powers to include "Law Enforcement Support Activities", extending Federal jurisdiction to areas previously reserved for State and local authority. These rules might ALSO be enacted by July. YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED... AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION, (a public comment letter), is worth a year in the courts. PLEASE HELP BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION!! >>> WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY APRIL 18 TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD. The more letters they have, the longer it will take them to put the regulations through. Lots of comment letters will also make this easier to fight in court if they are enacted, setting up better standing to apply for an injunction against enforcement of the regs while the opposition case is prepared. You are also encouraged to ask that the comment period be extended, to allow for the meaningful inputs of those who have not heard of this Federal Register publication. Note that Forest Service officials previously agreed to notify folks in DC of any new action relevant to the 'Group Use' issues already at stake... THEY DID NOT DO SO, nor did they reveal this new rulemaking to Congressional committee staff during their inquiry only 3 weeks before publication. We did not get word until mid-March, nearly halfway through the 60-day comment period. SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS TO: Jack Ward Thomas, Chief (5300) Forest Service, USDA P.0. Box 96090 Washington, DC 20090-6090 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Gregory (912-257-2471) Law Enforcement & Investigations Staff Kathryn Toffenetti (202-720-2651 ) Office of the General Counsel, Natural Resources Division -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- >>> THE ISSUES... When the National Forest System was founded over 90 years ago, Congress set up the Forest Service to protect our land and resources. Now the Agency is moving full-tilt into the POLICE BUSINESS!... Their purpose is supposed to be stewardship of the land rather than control over individuals. HERE ARE SOME THINGS YOU MIGHT FIND OBJECTIONABLE ABOUT THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, 36 CFR PARTS 261 & 262. (These can be found in the Federal Register of your local library): <=> The Forest Service contends that this amendment Is needed to fulfill authorities established under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, and the National Forest System Drug Control Act of 1986. They assert that this authority "...allows regulating occupancy and use even If such regulation is not necessary for the protection of forest resources (United States v. Hymans, 463 F.2d 615 (lOth Cir. 1972))." [p.7880]. <=> The Agency determined unilaterally that this Is not a "significant rule" and therefore is "not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866". They also claim to comply with the 'maximum benefit / minimum cost' mandate of other Executive orders -- but you gotta wonder.... <=> The Agency's newly defined "Law Enforcement Officers" and "Special Agents" [s262.1, p.7691] are given vast new enforcement powers that override State and local authorities. The rules actually provide for "Purchase of information or evidence in furtherance of investigations" [s263.3; p.7891] -- in short, bribery for the sake of prosecution. <=> By changing various charges previously classed as felonies into Class B Misdemeanors with jail penalties of less than 6 months, this regulation takes advantage of court rules which allow for jury trials to be bypassed in many such cases. This means that more cases would be handled faster, more defendants would waive rights, and more revenues would be generated by imposing criminal fines. HERE ARE SOME POINTS TO LOOK AT MORE CLOSELY: <> s261.2 Definitions. The rule newly defines "Controlled substance" in a way that "...possession of drugs may be handled through a United States Magistrate judge by the issuance of a violation notice, rather than by proceeding under the simple possession statute at 21U.S.C. 844, which provides either the filing of a complaint or information, or indictment by a Federal grand jury." [p. 7882] Does this mean no jury, fast-track enforcement, or maybe a 'violation notice' issued in advance of a supposed crime? <> s261.4 Public Behavior. If these regulations pass, 'public behavior' will become an activity the Forest Service could regulate [p.7889]. At the very least, let people be themselves in the woods! The rules would leave up to the discretion of an officer what should be considered to be "obscene" behavior (the actual wording of this prohibition -- "using language, an utterance, or act that Is ...Obscene"), or construed to be "...Causing public inconvenience ... by making unreasonably loud noise." What activities might "...threaten the health, safety, rights or enjoyment of forest users", and how does a Forest Service officer decide? They also prohibit "BEING under the influence of any controlled substance or alcohol..." (as opposed to DRIVING or WORKING 'under the influence'...). If people are just BEING THEMSELVES, does this constitute Probable Cause for search and seizure by Forest Service Police? Are they going to walk around the forest with breatholizer devices? Now the Agency would take control over all laws on "controlled substances, alcoholic beverages, or contraband" on public land, without having to prove possession or impacts on public safety... and assert control over one of the few places left where people can go to express themselves freely. <> s261.10 Occupancy and Use. These activities would now be subject to broad Agency authorities on public lands, and illegal without a permit: "(a) ...any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure... (b) ...Taking possession of, occupying, residing upon, or otherwise using the National Forest System ...for any purpose. (e) Abandoning any personal property. (f) Placing a vehicle or other object in such a manner that it Is an Impediment or hazard to the safety or convenience of any person. (g) Disseminating, posting, placing, or erecting any paper, notice, advertising material, sign, handbill, petition, or similar written and/or graphic material. (h) ...using...any device which produces noise, such as, radio, television, musical instrument, motor or engine, in such a manner...so as to unreasonably disturb any person. (j) Use or occupancy of the National Forest System when authorization Is required. (l) Failing to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by a Forest officer. (n) Paying for any...special use authorization, fee, or service by check with insufficient funds. (p) Failing to display special use authorlzation...or other document when such display Is required." [p. 7890] <> s261.53 Special Closures. Agents are given broad discretion to close off areas of the National Forests for reasons of environmental protection or public health and safety. In these instances the Forest Service must show that the ecological issues they raise are documented previously in approved studies or managment plans, but no such stipulation is made. Moreover courts have ruled that Public Health concerns should remain the jurisdiction of qualified health authorities, NOT the Forest Service. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO LOOK FURTHER ON YOUR OWN. *** A major Issue: The regulatory grounds upon which the Forest Service Is trying to assume all these new powers. There Is already provision for "Cooperation by Secretary of Agriculture with States and political subdivisions in law enforcement" (16 USC s 551a]. NO SIGNIFICANT INTEREST is offered for imposing centralized Federal authority, aside from claims that the existing rule provides "...an inadequate regulatory basis for conducting law enforcement activities" [p.7880], and that the prosecution should "...be practical" [p.7883]. Research and share what you learn: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, National Forest Drug Control Act of 1986, Executive Orders 12866, 12630, 12291, 12498... & all those dizzy legaloid YapFlaps! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- [[ Note: The text of the 2/16 Federal Register publication (V.59 / No.32, pp. 7880-92) was scanned and posted from DC under the following tags:
Date= "02/16/94" Citation= "59 FR 7880" Group= "interior" Type= "PROPOSED RULE" Department= "DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE" Agency= "FOREST SERVICE, USDA" Subject= "Prohibitions; Law Enforcement Support Activities"
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RIN 0596-AA75 Thanks for reading this stuff, tell us whatcha thunk, let's get cracking: REMEMBER: 4/18/94 Deadline for comments to the Forest Service!!! Peace thru Elbow Grease, -- Scottie in Chicago, 3/25/94 Posted by PETROS. ==================================================================