A brief reminder on the origins of this "great nation," it was founded by individuals seeking refuge from religious persecution in the forests of the "New World." It is most certain that the framers of the original governing structure of this country would have deemed it treasonous, if not insane, to require a "permit" for the people to peaceably assemble in the public wilderness. Seeking refuge in the wilderness is a tradition that can be traced back at least to the Israelites fleeing the persecution of Egypt.
History notwithstanding, on August 30, 1995, a final rule was published in the Federal Register, which would restrict the public's right to gather in the National Forests of this country. The regulation took effect on September 29, 1995. The response to the public comment letters received in August, 1993 can be found in the Federal Register, August 30, 1995, pgs. 45258 - 45295 (Amendments to CFR 36 Sections 251 and 261). The agency purports to assert in detail how large gatherings have posed health, safety, traffic, and environmental risks in the past.
The basic rationale used to justify implementing these grave restrictions on the right of the people to peaceably assemble in the national forests is that large group gatherings in the National forests have significant adverse impacts on forest resources, public health and safety, and the agency's ability to allocate space in the face of increasing constraints on the use of National Forest Lands. The alleged impacts include the spread of disease, pollution from inadequate site cleanup, soil compaction from inadequate site restoration, damage to archeological sites, and traffic congestion. The Forest Service says these regulations are "narrowly tailored to further significant government interest," because ALL gatherings of 75 or more people are to be regulated, regardless of whether the groups are exercising freedom of expression or not.
The Forest Service responds to most, and makes minor concessions to a couple, of the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule (Federal Register, May 1993). Most noticeable is the apparent removal of the requirement for all groups who gather to apply for a permit to distribute non-commercial printed literature.
THE PROBLEM with this is that the regulation itself does not distinguish between "commercial" and "non-commercial," but refers only to "distribution of printed material."
The regulations have also been modified so that now the Forest Service believes they have fulfilled the time requirement for granting or denying a permit, by requiring that it grant or deny a permit within 48 hours of that application. THE PROBLEM here is that the determination as to whether or not a permit holder has violated conditions of a permit is left to the whim of the enforcement officer in the field.
As far as we know, the first legal avenue to be pursued at this point is an application for a temporary restraining order to prevent this regulation from going into effect; this would only be the first step in a complicated a lawsuit.
Unless a person can type, research and follow through on the time deadlines involved in a complicated lawsuit, a lawyer's help will be essential for this avenue to be effective. Past court cases have shown that dangerous precedents can be set by well meaning individuals losing pivotal court cases.
THE PROBLEM is that most lawyers have become so detached from reality that they are liable to say, " Uh, you mean that we didn't have to have permits to gather in public forests before? Frankly, a regulation like this couldn't be one of my top priorities; after all, I need a permit to drive my car, don't I?" To a large degree lawyers seem hopeless. But, it's been said, there's always hope.
The onus is on the public at this point to challenge what is now effectively law. Please investigate any and all options that may be effective at countering this direct attack on the right of all Americans to freely assemble on public lands!! Connect with any source of legal advice you may know of, try to convince them that freedom of assembly on public lands is an important (inalienable) right. Coordinate with others to solidify a cohesive network of communication and participation.
For a copy of the Federal Register August 30, 1995 publication call Sharon Prell (202) 205-1414, NFS Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources Management Staff (2340), Forest Service, USDA, PO Box 96090, or Ellen Hornstein, (202) 720-9616, Natural Resources Division, Office of the General Counsel, USDA. Or a copy can be obtained via rob@welcomehome.org or by accessing http://www.welcomehome. org/rainbow.html
Proposition One POBox 27217 Wash, DC 20038 (202)462-0757 prop1@uujobs.com
The Declaration... This is a logical extension of the petitions and positions presented to date: It amplifies the fact that Gathering on the Land has nothing to do with any Group, nor is it a "Use" warranting regulation -- it is a Consensus of Individuals joining together and sanctifying the Land, the heart of Free Assembly and Public Stewardship. And it puts our personal butts on the line.
The Affirmation... The Ninth Amendment assures the sovereignty of the People and the primacy of our Rights. As a Brother pointed out: WE grant specific powers TO the Guvmint, not the other way around. The Constitution was enabled only by the Declaration of Independence, setting the absolute limit to Guvmint powers... and then by the Bill of Rights, where this limit is embodied in the 9th Amendment. Where an action of Goverment exceeds its Constitutional authority, it is our right and duty to stand in opposition on these grounds.
As I understand it -- by making this Affirmation, one assumes standing to join as a litigant in relevant legal challenges, and to challenge pro-actively to prevent an imminent harm to individual rights and sovereignty. This strategy can be meaningful to impending legal actions on the FS Regs, strengthening defense cases and creating new options to take the offensive.
Operating Instructions...
The Two Parts: Definitely sign the "Declaration of Non-Compliance;" the 9th Amendment Affirmation is a discretionary next step.Together they pack a bigger wallop.
Notary Note: A Notary simply witnesses your signing and who you are, but the seal authenticates the document and makes it legal. If you sign only the Declaration, you may choose to notarize or not; if you also sign the Affirmation, get it notarized for sure.
Send It In: The letter is addressed to the Chief of the Forest Service, because he is the Official directly responsible for the Agency's Regs. If it is sent by CERTIFIED MAIL with Return Receipt, it is "official" and the document would be legally served on the Agency.
Suggested Option: Copies can be sent (cc:) to other officials as well, your most/least favorite Congressmember, the press, etc.
Scott C. Addison PCU POB 6625 Chicago, IL 60680 312-409-0018 scottie@dol.com
Such arbitrary government powers to restrict First Amendment Freedoms and deny Citizen access to Public Land are unconstitutional, and contrary to American law and tradition. Similar rules have been struck down twice by Federal Courts, yet the Agency still pursues these policies. This is unconscienable.
Our National Forests are the sanctuary of American freedoms and the legacy of nature for future generations: The federal government is mandated as trustee for their protection, not as owner with proprietary control: It may not obstruct or exclude Public entry by bureaucratic whim. It is our Right to gather peaceably as free Citizens on Public Lands, and our Duty as final Stewards in their care.
Fundamentally, Free Assembly is a consensus of individuals where no authority can be delegated: I may not assume responsibility or liability for others by signing a permit, nor may anyone else do so on my behalf. And it is intrinsically unconstitutional for the government to hold such a permit authority over protected freedoms: Where there is no compelling interest for regulation -- and Cooperation is shown to fulfill public purposes -- the "least restrictive means" are mandated by law.
As an American citizen it is my obligation to resist this burden upon the People and the Land, and the dangerous precedents it would set into law: I hereby state that I will refuse to comply with the enactment and enforcement of the proposed "Group Use" regulations in the National Forests, or any such law abridging Constitutional and Natural Rights on Public Lands.
For Peace on the land,
Signed:
[date]
Name
Address: Street
City State Zip
cc: Jim Lyons, USDA UnderSecretary
Carol Rasco, White House Office of Domestic Policy
Alice M. Rivlin, White House Office of Management and Budget
Jack Ward Thomas, Chief
AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration inthe Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The U.S. Government is without authority to restrict or limit unalienable rights of free assembly, expression, and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment, nor to abrogate Fourth Amendment protections of individual privacy and security.
By this Affirmation I may stand as a litigant, to challenge the legal or constitutional grounds of the above-cited regulation or other measures infringing on protected Rights on Public Lands.
Signed:
[date]
Name
Address: Street
City State Zip
Signed and sworn before me this _________ day of ________________.
Notary Public
cc: Jim Lyons, USDA UnderSecretary
Carol Rasco, White House Office of Domestic Policy
Alice M. Rivlin, White House Office of Management and Budget