Strike back against BLM fascism!

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:31 am

Which brings me to fantasy #2

I would set-up a group (ala The Black Panthers) who follow the LEO's around w/ video recorders filming (from a discrete distance of course) the activities of the LEO's. Of course, the members of this group would be dressed in highly visible and instantly recognizeable costumes (with a unique light set-up for night) to alert citizens of BRC in the proximity who "do not want to be the next film subject". (yes, I know there are legality issues here...it's just a fantasy!)

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:40 am

blyslv wrote:
helitack wrote:Just remember, the BLM does not have to grant a permit. .
Why not, doesn't the land belong to the taxpayer?

Yes, but the BLM manages it for us. Holds it in trust, perhaps. And enforces the law on it. (Hey commiting a crime in your own home, doesn't make it legal.)

On the other hand, don't I own the CIA building and GITMO? Lets hold he event there without a permit. Either one. You go first.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:46 pm

I don't believe that Langley or GITMO are classified as public lands. But I get your point, although I have to wonder how much "management" the black rock desert actually needs.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:34 pm

Maybe BRC LLC could purchase land, then BM would be on private land and you would have no issues. I did not allow the gate keeper to search my vehicle. I said that he could look in the windows but not enter. If he had been LEO, with a warrant or sufficient PC, then I would have allowed it. Get your ACLU bust card and know your rights, educate yourself and you will avoid problems.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:46 pm

I don't think holding the event on private land would mitigate any legal problems. It might create a few. The key seems to be discrection, knowing your rights, willingness to stand up for them if necessary and respect. I don't think there is anything wrong with letting LEOs know that they don't have carte blanche (and hopefully, most probably don't act that way) and that there are people willing to observe and report if need be.

The mention of "fascism" is silly in this context.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:54 pm

Your constitutional rights have little to do with vehicle searches at Gate. Everybody (including those of us working out there weeks before the event opens) gets searched for stowaways, if not dead horses.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:59 pm

helitack wrote:Maybe BRC LLC could purchase land, then BM would be on private land and you would have no issues. I did not allow the gate keeper to search my vehicle. I said that he could look in the windows but not enter. If he had been LEO, with a warrant or sufficient PC, then I would have allowed it. Get your ACLU bust card and know your rights, educate yourself and you will avoid problems.

^
so your a smart ass. BM don't need you. your lucky the gate did'nt turn you around and kick you out. read your ticket info. educate "yourself" and "you" will void problems.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:04 pm

Bob wrote:Your constitutional rights have little to do with vehicle searches at Gate. Everybody (including those of us working out there weeks before the event opens) gets searched for stowaways, if not dead horses.

That's not just any old dead horse. I'm barbequeing that dead horse for my camp on Wednesday night.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:07 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
Bob wrote:Your constitutional rights have little to do with vehicle searches at Gate. Everybody (including those of us working out there weeks before the event opens) gets searched for stowaways, if not dead horses.
That's not just any old dead horse. I'm barbequeing that dead horse for my camp on Wednesday night.

^
yummmmmmy

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:46 pm

'I don't think holding the event on private land would mitigate any legal problems. It might create a few. '

I recieved a reply to last years BM essay mentioning a large yearly gathering in rural New York state held on private
land which also ends with a large bonfire, and police are allegedly not allowed inside.

'The key seems to be discrection, knowing your rights, willingness to stand up for them if necessary and respect. I don't think there is anything wrong with letting LEOs know that they don't have carte blanche (and hopefully, most probably don't act that way) and that there are people willing to observe and report if need be.'

Police should be there primarily to keep violence in check, and I believe most police in San Francisco, from which many Burners are from, are models of such behavour. They don't peek into nearly shut windows to look for excuses to pull guns on people, they come when called. They were largely models of professional restraint at BM.

The BLM, who seem to be told by someone to act like arrogant swine, were not. There is a story to be told somewhere in this. There are people whose directives are largely responsable for such tactics, that of assuming a 'law enforcement' mode rather than a 'steward of the land' mode, and I hope they are exposed.

'The mention of "fascism" is silly in this context.'

I agree that using such words can be regarded as a rhetorical equivelent of swearing, but I submit that the specific instances I quoted earlier do indeed wade deeply into such behavour. Yanking aside and shaking down someone who is advising their family about their rights during an illegal search is a contender for such labeling. So is the act of citing someone for having rolling papers and nothing else. Simple harassment.
As for BLM 'area searches' There are too many plausable reports of this happening at BM to ignore. It reminds me of an eyewitness account I heard of a situation in rural Texas, where moterists were being stopped and their cars searched at a roadblock. When asked what they were searching for, the cop grinned and said 'Anything!' I submit such tactics wander dangerously from the legal framework we used to proudly parade as superior to the repressive governments an earlier generation fought against.

Flib

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:58 pm

It appears that a few jerks on this thread want to use BM to break the law. they just get.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:08 pm

and I believe most police in San Francisco, from which many Burners are from

The world does not revolve around Ess Eff. And "most" burners are not from there at least anymore, only the LLC and many of the familiar leadership types seem to be. Expand your mindset a bit. This reminder is a public service compliments of the Midwest Burners group..2100 miles East of San Francisco thank you very much.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:11 pm

So many opportunites for correction, so little time:

flibidyjib wrote:' Yanking aside and shaking down someone who is advising their family about their rights during an illegal search is a contender for such labeling. So is the act of citing someone for having rolling papers and nothing else. Simple harassment.

Nicely but erroneously connected, there, Fdbjt. They are not even close to the same thing. One is censorship and brutality, the other is whining. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Paraphernalia is illegal. The choice to ignore the law in the latter case would be generosity on the part of the BLM ranger. The choice not to ignore it is his/her job.

flibidyjib wrote: As for BLM 'area searches' There are too many plausable reports of this happening at BM to ignore. It reminds me of an eyewitness account I heard of ...

And here seems to be the real crux of the problem. Once-removed is still hearsay, regardless of whther the story itself may have been told by an eyewitness, no? Are you trying to deal with real issues, or are you jumping on a bandwagon beause you saw it go by and liked the music?

FTR, I think that no real law enforcemnt misconduct should go unreported. What is unlcear is what you really intend to do about it. It sounds like you are looking for claims but you have not presented any plan for what you are going to do about it, or even what you want to get out of it.

Instead you posted some heavy ranting. If I'd had a brush with the law, you aren't yet striking me as someone I'd trust with my story, let alone write a letter on my behalf.

burning tent · Post by **burning tent** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:35 am

Just my opinion -of course- but I thought they (the BLM rangers) sucked.

I believe I stated this before but my view of it was bears at a salmon stream. Eat up, easy pickings.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:33 pm

unjonharley wrote:
helitack wrote:Maybe BRC LLC could purchase land, then BM would be on private land and you would have no issues. I did not allow the gate keeper to search my vehicle. I said that he could look in the windows but not enter. If he had been LEO, with a warrant or sufficient PC, then I would have allowed it. Get your ACLU bust card and know your rights, educate yourself and you will avoid problems.
^
so your a smart ass. BM don't need you. your lucky the gate did'nt turn you around and kick you out. read your ticket info. educate "yourself" and "you" will void problems.

Smartass, no, let a private citizen search a vehicle they can see into, no. I dont care what the ticket says. Feds cant search a vehicle without probable cause. So they dont unless you let them when they ask, can I search your vehicle? What is the PC at the gate? What is the PC at the gate for a volunteer? None.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:04 pm

The PC is "Private fucking event, you stupid dumbass." You consent to the search when you present your ticket. You don't let the gate crew search you, the gate crew doesn't have to let you in. The license granted you by the ticket can be revoked at any time. It's not about law enforcement, it's about enforcing one of our community standards.

If it's obvious with just a visual inspection that you don't have any stowaways, then a visual, through-the-windows will do. They don't need to meet any standard of probable cause, though, because you've consented to it. And if you don't consent to it, your ticket doesn't get honored. The gate staff have it hard enough, and enough pressure on them (especially when things are busy there, as they often are) without ignorant asshats fucking with them.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:10 pm

Ranger Genius wrote:The PC is "Private fucking event, you stupid dumbass." You consent to the search when you present your ticket. You don't let the gate crew search you, the gate crew doesn't have to let you in. The license granted you by the ticket can be revoked at any time. It's not about law enforcement, it's about enforcing one of our community standards.

If it's obvious with just a visual inspection that you don't have any stowaways, then a visual, through-the-windows will do. They don't need to meet any standard of probable cause, though, because you've consented to it. And if you don't consent to it, your ticket doesn't get honored. The gate staff have it hard enough, and enough pressure on them (especially when things are busy there, as they often are) without ignorant asshats fucking with them.

^
Eloquently

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:40 am

People, I am not arguing for anarchy, or for flaunting lawbreaking, even if the laws are questionable products of the repressive aspects of culture many of us go out there to get away from. I am gathering what I consider plausable reports of alarming trends, of which anyone interested in personal freedom as well as Burning man should be aware, and attempting to come to grips in my own mind with what can be done. For the record, I really don't care about searches for stowaways, except to point this out as a pernicious influence mandated by the policies of the BLM.
The bias I bring to my accounts is a reflection of the bias the BLM apparantly brings with them to the event. The overwhelmingly dominent theme in stories about encounters with them is that BLM are not at Burning man to be of service to atendees, they are out there to bust people. If people are asking for it by acting like idiots out in the open near witnesses fine, let them be the sacrificial lambs. What is intolerable is when people are illegally searched simply for being near an incident or for no reason at all except as 'fishing' through peoples backpacks and such.

I like the suggestion of dragonfly Jafe, indeed more than one party can play the surviellence game. If a dozen people at a time or more were taping BLM actions from varying distances a lawyer could later find fault with the BLM actions if illegal searches or unnecessary brandishing of firearms occured. If they are going to act like vice cops they should have to be answerable for every instance where they draw their guns. A bullhorn warning people could be another creative use of 'people power', god knows there are enough bullhorns out there spouting all sorts of chatter.

technopatra says 'Paraphernalia is illegal.', although I clearly stated the item in question was cigarette rolling papers. Since when are rolling papers illegal in absence of illegal substances? I interpret writing out a ticket under such circumstances as harassment, not acting in the public safety, and I am surprised in such a case you ( and others) are so willing to hand the benefit of the doubt to the BLM.

technopatra thoughtfully states "FTR, I think that no real law enforcemnt misconduct should go unreported. What is unlcear is what you really intend to do about it."
I want to let people know they have rights and that a paper trail is an excellent way to establish problematic trends for the public record. People are being subjected to the harassment of an agency which has an apparant record of questionable practices in Nevada and the more smoke drifts into the wind the easier it might be sometime to get the right person to see the fire.

This is where you should send complaints about illegal searches and unprofessional behavour at the hands of the BLM:

Mr. Earl E. Devaney
Inspector General
Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

In any recent year well over a hundred such complaints could be filed, especially if there are multiple witnesses. I will print up a pile of paper with such info and distribute them at the event. I would even suggest such addresses to file complaints to should be part of the 'welcome' package people are given, but the BM people admittedly have a lot on their plate.

Someone is telling the BLM to act like arrogant swine to people at the event as a matter of policy. These are supposed to be rangers dealing with hunting , dumping and land allocation issues, not vice cops for crissakes. Whoever is inculcating a 'police mode' instead of a 'caretaker of the land' mode into the rangers, gathered from all over the rural west to police the event, is what should be looked into.

Might this individual possibly be:

Terry Reed
Field Manager
WINNEMUCCA FIELD OFFICE
5100 East Winnemucca Boulevard
Winnemucca, Nevada 89445

or possibly:

State Director Robert Abbey
Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Blvd.,
Reno, NV 89502
(775)861-6400
www.nv.blm.gov
[email protected]

Or even:

Secretary of Interior Gale A. Norton
Department of the Interior
1849 C St., NW
Washington DC 20240
(202)208-3100
www.doi.gov
[email protected]

Somebody knows. Somebody will eventually disclose in an interview or in a court case the story of how they extorted vast sums of money from BM and then gathered their rangers who were prompted to shake people down once they arrive. Some BLM rangers will disclose the training they were given specific to the event regarding the attendees.

technopatra concludes: (not picking on you, just answering your reasonable comments)
"Instead you posted some heavy ranting. If I'd had a brush with the law, you aren't yet striking me as someone I'd trust with my story, let alone write a letter on my behalf."

I 'spoke' passionately like I thought I was with people who also see the problem and decry how it has changed the event for the worst. I despise these thugs soiling the uniform of the Department of the Interior, which I once worked for. If most e-playa readers do not see that there is a problem then fine, give the BLM the full benefit of your doubts. Maybe if those of you who think everyone being hassled by the BLM deserves it gets caught up in some wide ranging search you will just say 'I don't mind, I have nothing to hide'.
I write extensively on the web about the event for the last 8 years and part of the story is the reaction of government agencies to it. Perhaps at the most one percent of the text deals with the above topic, in fair context within the enthalling majesty of this greatest of counterculture art festivals. I treat events fairly and with due regard to the quality of the information I could find. What I want is more information, because I believe there is an interesting story to tell.

As for what we can do, the best measures we can take is to attempt to safeguard our privacy. In the end this is really what it's about. Already camps are incorporating line of sight and 'private space' issues in their design, and I have suggested setting up art projects whose by product is to reduce the effectiveness of long range and night vision surveillence not just by the BLM but by voyeurs of all kinds. small independent art projects incorporating Intermittant flash strobes aimed in various directions, remote controllable telephoto cameras similar to the 'time lapse' projects of recent years and creative uses of 'dummy' lures with heart felt notes visible close up might be worth considering. Well, I can dream, can't I?

The Nevada BLM is apparantly up to more mischief than what we at Burning Man have experienced. This suggests a possible local corruption problem which may well differ from national policy.

a story on Nevada BLM sleazy land deals to rich local doners at the taxpayers expense:

http://www.electricnevada.com/pages97/blmblok2.htm

And more of the same on other states:

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20040405.cfm

The Nevada BLM involved in Shoshone cattle rustling:

http://www.uhuh.com/environment/dann1.htm

Flib

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:19 am

I despise these thugs soiling the uniform of the Department of the Interior, which I once worked for.

Folks, we have a winner...

I think that this statement says a lot, and answers a major question that I had about this author's posts...

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:28 am

so, you want to come to my vacation and get away from the laws of the land? said it befor: BM don't need you.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:35 am

gesundheit wrote:A bullhorn warning people could be another creative use of 'people power', god knows there are enough bullhorns out there spouting all sorts of chatter.

This one's a brilliant idea. I say you do that. I'll supply the bullhorn for ya. Enjoy the ride to Lovelock.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:36 am

flibidyjib wrote:creative uses of 'dummy' lures with heart felt notes visible close up might be worth considering. Well, I can dream, can't I?

I am trying to get some incensce with a particularl pungeant aroma. I plan on dropping some in every fire pit I can in 2005...

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:43 am

i burn a little sage in the evening and watch down wind. a bit of after diner fun.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:59 am

I did my dime, did "my" time. The law was factured in on each run. Sure as hell didn't come to a world wide net to whine.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:16 am

ok, ya'll, sometimes the anti-BLM mania does go over the top. but there's a lot of value in not allowing ANY sort of enforcement group to get away with whatever they want, regardless of rules.

my understanding is that, as stated earlier, you submit to a search as a condition of using your ticket. fine. maybe not pleasant (never been problematic for me) but fine. but there are times that the BLM has gone beyond what they were meant to.

i have, of course, heard many stories second and third hand. the only thing i actually saw was the BLM walking straight into camp space and looking into camp domes - the equivalent of homes. luckily we have a 300 lb ranger who camps with us, who is incredibly sweet and was happy to go speak to them.

document, document, document. if you see something that blatantly crosses the lines of what the BLM can legally do, document it. you can use that documentation (if it's good enough) to save someone's ass or to get the BLM to tone down, if you have enough (and reliable enough) documentation. it will do far more than bitching at individual rangers or bitching on the boards or bitching at BuMP.

there's also the fine art of intervention. it's also a ticket straight out of the event.... it just depends what it's worth to you.

talk to your local NLG or ACLU if you really want to pursue this. most local activist crews have contacts with lawyers and with legal observers. those folks can also tell you how the law is influenced by being on public land at a private event.

who was it who said that those who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserve neither?

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:53 am

who was it who said that those who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserve neither?

Ben Franklin.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:45 am

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor a Safety Meeting.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:45 am

Rian Jackson wrote:document, document, document. if you see something that blatantly crosses the lines of what the BLM can legally do, document it. you can use that documentation (if it's good enough) to save someone's ass or to get the BLM to tone down, if you have enough (and reliable enough) documentation. it will do far more than bitching at individual rangers or bitching on the boards or bitching at BuMP.

there's also the fine art of intervention. it's also a ticket straight out of the event.... it just depends what it's worth to you.

Good adivce, but how does one document police abuse where the even does not allow photography without permission? Let alone video? And the police can always play the "obstruction" card, or even worse if you are on a bullhorn trying to warn the masses of police presence. Even asking for an officer's name is sometimes very risky on the Playa (even approaching a police officer unsolicited can be risky, depending on the scene).

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:53 am

Yeah baby -- next time some drunk beats somebody's head in or drives their SUV through over your tent -- better call a hippie, 'cause the real cops are detained by the bullhorn fuckwits.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:04 am

dragonfly Jafe wrote:
Rian Jackson wrote:document, document, document. if you see something that blatantly crosses the lines of what the BLM can legally do, document it. you can use that documentation (if it's good enough) to save someone's ass or to get the BLM to tone down, if you have enough (and reliable enough) documentation. it will do far more than bitching at individual rangers or bitching on the boards or bitching at BuMP.

there's also the fine art of intervention. it's also a ticket straight out of the event.... it just depends what it's worth to you.
Good adivce, but how does one document police abuse where the even does not allow photography without permission? Let alone video? And the police can always play the "obstruction" card, or even worse if you are on a bullhorn trying to warn the masses of police presence. Even asking for an officer's name is sometimes very risky on the Playa (even approaching a police officer unsolicited can be risky, depending on the scene).

this is what i'm trying to say.
i suspect you could get around the camera/video stuff. more to the point would be that perhaps the 'authorities' would have concept that people are fucked up there and would take your testimony with a grain of salt.

as for bob's comment, it would be wise not to tie up the BLM for the entire day. there are times when it's handy to have someone around. and besides, much as i occasionally enjoy antagonising the cops, this is not always the wisest course of action.

it would be tough for them to actually make obstruction fly. that said, the MO of cops up here at least is to arrest first, make up charges later, so no guarantees on that.

Strike back against BLM fascism!

BLM tactics-who gives the orders?

Re: BLM tactics-who gives the orders?

The BLM vs Burning Man-whose policy?

Re: The BLM vs Burning Man-whose policy?