NATIVE_NEWS: Fwd: Wild Wyoming Needs Your Help
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:54:06 -0700 To: "Wild Rockies Alerts" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Wild Rockies InfoNet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wild Wyoming Needs Your Help Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wild Wyoming Needs Your Help Action Alert: Prevent Development Adjacent to Wyoming's Spectacular Washakie Wilderness From Greater Yellowstone Coalition; Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance; Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club; Wyoming Outdoor Council More Clearcuts, New Oil Wells In the Heart of the Shoshone National Forest, the Forest Service May Allow Both. Unless... Ramshorn Peak is one of the most prominent landmarks in the Absaroka Mountains. Motorists traveling through the Wind River Valley are awed when they first catch sight of its jagged peak, rising from a sea of spruce, fir, and whitebark pine. The cliffs tower over the headwaters of Tappan and Brent Creeks, just outside the Washakie Wilderness, north of Dubois, Wyoming. The Shoshone was the nation's first national forest, created on March 30, 1891 by President Harrison to protect forests threatened by overcutting for railroad ties to make the nation's growing railways. Near the town of Dubois - which is making the switch from timber town to tourism economy - is the amazing and beautiful Dunoir Special Management Area, a vast forested valley below the colorful cliffs of the Continental Divide, draining into the Wind River. This is where the Forest Service is preparing the Ramshorn Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to simultaneously consider a major timber harvest and an oil company's proposal to develop an exploratory well. The latter would involve bulldozing a road, gouging out waste pits, pouring concrete pads, erecting drill rigs and - if the company hits oil or gas - installing pipelines, dehydrators, condensate tanks, gas "sweetening" plants, and many other eyesores. The proposed timber sale will "treat" over 700 acres of forest, and build more than 5 miles of new road. All this development will take place on the same 14,000 acres. Do you want industrial development a few miles from the Washakie Wilderness? If not, please consider writing to the Forest Service. More than scenery is at stake! Biologists have called the Ramshorn area some of the the best grizzly bear habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. At least 15 bears use the area. It's also the first place outside Yellowstone Park where recently reintroduced wolves chose to den, one of the few remote places in Wyoming where lynx tracks have been found and it provides some of the best elk habitat in the state. The site is also a favorite recreation spot for locals and visitors to the Upper Wind River Valley. Hiking, backpacking, horsepacking, fishing, and hunting would be compromised by traffic, flaring of gas, and other round the-clock activity that comes with oil and gas development. The Shoshone is facing too many pressures: * Over the next ridge, the Forest Service has already approved the Double Cabin Timber Sale for 1999-2000, which will further compromise important habitat and inevitably send the area's unstable soils into the Wiggins Fork-- a nominated Wild and Scenic river. * Also in the Wind River Valley, contractors are gearing up to straighten and widen Togwotee Pass Highway. In areas where grizzly bears are known to cross, the highway's footprint on the landscape will grow as trees are removed and more surface is paved. The combined effects of these projects - some already approved, others under consideration - could be disastrous for wildlife in the area. Please write the Shoshone National Forest and tell them: The exploratory well under the Ramshorn should not be approved. Grizzlies and other wildlife depend on this important habitat and it should not be sacrificed as a development zone! The Ramshorn EIS must analyze: * The cumulative effects of the proposed Brent Creek timber sale, as well as the Double Cabin Timber sale, the Togwotee Pass highway reconstruction, oil and gas leasing in the Brent Creek and Sheridan Pass areas and in four management areas being considered for leasing on the other side of the Continental Divide in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. * The effects that oil and gas leasing, exploration and development on lynx, grizzly bears, wolves, elk, moose and goshawks. * The impacts of increased human activity and the potential for human/bear encounters. * The impacts to roadless areas, wilderness, air quality, water quality, wildlife migration routes, historic/cultural resources and visual/recreational resources. * The environmental impacts of exploration and full field oil and gas development including the construction of roads and all the other facilities and activities associated with petroleum development. Other points you may wish to emphasize: * As required by the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest Service
NATIVE_NEWS: Chiapas:: En;A YEAR AFTER THE MASSACRE IMPUNITY'S NAME IS ACTEAL,Dec 13
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:12:13 -0600 (CST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chiapas95-english) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: En;A YEAR AFTER THE MASSACRE IMPUNITY'S NAME IS ACTEAL,Dec 13 This message is forwarded to you as a service of Zapatistas Online. From: "NUEVO AMANECER PRESS" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "N.A.P. E-2" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:53:30 + Subject: A YEAR AFTER THE MASSACRE IMPUNITY'S NAME IS ACTEAL Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TRANSLATED BY ROSALVA BERMUDEZ-BALLIN FOR NUEVO AMANECER PRESS Original message Masiosare, Sunday, December 13, 1998 -- A Year After the Massacre Impunity's name is Acteal Jesus Ramirez Cuevas Translated by Rosalva Bermudez-Ballin The killing was a State crime. Christmas of last year, a Priista para- military group from the Chenalho municipality killed a group of 45 defenceles Tzotziles. The attack was planned and executed according to military counterinsurgency manuals. The purpose for the genocide was to combat the rebellious communities. Acteal, Chiapas. In the killing of 21 women, 15 childen and 9 men, committed in the the mountainous area of Chenalho on the 22nd of December of last year, "there are responsabilities on the part of state and federal governments which have not been studied thoroughly. The PGR has limited itself to point to low level functionaries", maintains Jose Antonio Montero, the victims' attorney who is also a member of the Human Rights Center Fray Bartolome de las Casas. "Functionaries from state and federal governments have not been investigated, neither have members of the Armed Forces and Intelligence Forces who committed some type of mistake either by omission or by comission, before, during and after the killing". Montero adds. There is evidence and testimonies in judicial records that point to official responsibility. The freedom enjoyed by the assassins in order to carry out their crime was incredible. More than 60 people--90 according to the Fray Bartolome Center--armed with AK-47 guns, 22 rifles and UZI machine guns fired their guns for seven hours against these people who had been praying at a hermitage. The outcome: 45 dead, 22 wounded... and a people hurt forever. There are proofs that "40 members of the police were 200 meters away from the place where the crime took place and didn't do anything while the indigenous people were being massacred". The young attorney gives additional data: "At the moment when the crime was taking place, Julio Cesar Santiago, a retired Brigade General was at Acteal, he is a coordinator for the Advisors to the State Public Security Council. The general agreed before the Public Affairs Ministry (MP) that he had stayed there four hours. He was accompanied by to Commandants from the Public Security Police (PSP) with their respective contingent forces. The records have testimonies by state functionaries who show their knowledge--before the 22nd of December--that there were paramilitary groups working in Chenalho. The responsibilities of functionaries--at least by omission--go from those by the state government all the way up to the Ministry of the Interior (SG). In his ministerial testimony, Homero Tovilla Cristiani, General Secretary of State government, claims that a CISEN (Center of Investigations of National Security) agent informed the State Council of Public Security, that at 12:30, on the 22nd of December, two hours after the beginning of the massacre, there were disturbances taking place in Chenalho--. However, no one ever tried to find out who were the CISEN agents who provided the information to the functionary, what is it that they reported, if Emilio Chuayffet knew what was happening, if, on its part, the SG informed President Ernesto Zedillo. Those CISEN members, about whom there are the least information in the records, must be investigated also. The Council, the highest branch in charge of decisions in Chiapas, has branches throughout the state territory. It is formed by representatives of state government and the general in charge of the 7th military area. A few months before the massacre, the Chenalho Committee was formed by some municipal Priista authorities, the high command of Public Security, a military intelligence network and CISEN representatives. The passivity or complicity with which diverse authorities acted in the Acteal case involves the then governor Julio Cesar Ruiz Ferro and all his cabinet, in addition to members of the Armed Forces and functionaries of the federal government, including the then Secretary of the Interior, Emilio Chuayffer. The legal process has served to
NATIVE_NEWS: Racicot mocks the public with his position on bison
And now:Sonja Keohane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Something that I think has been known for a long time...a quote from the article below: "This isn't a disease management issue, it's a battle for who will control public lands and public wildlife." http://www3.gomontana.com/ Opinion. By TODD WILKINSON 12/14/1998 Racicot mocks the public with his position on bison You might think that Marc Racicot, the attorney who became Montana's popular governor, would know better from his days in the courtroom: It isn't ethical, politically prudent, or fair, to prosecute suspects unless you know you have sufficient evidence to support a conviction. Today, beyond the border of Yellowstone National Park, Montana Department of Livestock cowboys, with the governor's endorsement in their saddlebags, can carry out death sentences against Yellowstone bison when the animals' guilt has never been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, outraged citizens, here we go again: The state of Montana is belligerently trying to draw the American public into a barroom brawl and then, when the blood starts to spill, it will blame everyone, except itself, for getting a black eye. This winter, heavy snows could put many of Yellowstone's 2,000 bison on the move to lower elevations in Montana. The hungry behemoths - among the most beloved wildlife icons of our first national park - will then be either hazed back into Yellowstone or they will face state-run capture and slaughter. The purpose of this foolhardy herd control is to prevent native park bison, which carry the bacterium that causes brucellosis, from possibly infecting non-native cattle. In terms of evidence, Montana is relying upon hysteria, not science, to make its case in the court of public opinion. Jeanne-Marie Souvigney, a public land specialist with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, has been tracking the bison controversy for years. Soon, state and federal agencies will announce a long-term bison management plan based on an Environmental Impact Statement. As Souvigney notes, 65,000 citizen comments were received on the draft EIS, making it one of the most prominent American natural resource issues in recent years. "The majority of comments called upon the agencies to rightfully make room for bison outside Yellowstone," Souvigney said. "This isn't a disease management issue, it's a battle for who will control public lands and public wildlife." The state has no compelling evidence on which to base the slaughter of 2,000 park bison over the last decade or its present form of management, she says, asking: * Why is Montana slaughtering bison on U.S. Forest Service land at Horse Butte near West Yellowstone when the nearest cattle are now dozens of miles away? * Why has the Forest Service, which is legally mandated to provide winter range for wildlife, kowtowing to the Department of Livestock by allowing a bison capture facility to be built at Horse Butte? Not only was there fierce citizen opposition to construction of the $500,000 bison trap, but activity at the capture facility could drive bald eagles - a federally protected species - from using nearby nests. * Why is Montana being allowed to destroy the integrity of the Yellowstone bison herd on behalf of 2,000 head of cattle which inhabit private and public land along the western and northern border of the national park? Roughly 45 percent of the total cattle number mentioned above - many of them from Idaho - use Forest Service grazing allotments which generate less than $5,000 a year for the U.S. Treasury. Why are taxpayers being expected to spend a hundred times that amount to control bison on the same public lands? Since Montana continues to operate bison management as a kangaroo court, I enter into evidence the following exhibits. Exhibit A: There is not one documented case of brucellosis being passed from bison to cattle in the wild, not one. Yes, it's theoretically possible that brucellosis could be passed on to cattle - as likely as humans getting struck by lightning - but the risks are astronomically slim. Exhibit B: We now know that the federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service - the agency which initially demanded that park bison be shot in order for Montana to keep its "brucellosis-free status" - believes that bison can be afforded far more leeway than in previous years, especially along the west side of Yellowstone at Horse Butte. That's because APHIS recognizes its earlier position was scientifically unsupportable. Nor does it support threats of quarantine brought by other states against Montana cattle if Montana tolerates wandering bison. APHIS says there's no need to take preventative action against bison until April, roughly 60 days before the first cattle arrive back at Horse Butte. According to APHIS, the only animals that represent potential risks - in addition to wandering elk which aren't even addressed - are pregnant bison cows. Bison bulls, yearlings, calves
NATIVE_NEWS: Fwd: BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST DOE!
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:27:38 -0800 (PST) From: Jackie Cabasso [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST DOE! To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, December 14, 1998P.1 of 2 CONTACT: Jackie Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation (510) 839-5877 Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs (925) 443-7148 "HOORAY!" BIG WIN BY 39 PLAINTIFF GROUPS!! GROUPS WIN LANDMARK NUCLEAR WEAPONS "CLEANUP" VICTORY; TO AVOID CONTEMPT FINDING, ENERGY DEPARTMENT AGREES TO OPEN DATABASE, ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP PLANS, $6.25 MILLION CITIZEN MONITORING FUND WASHINGTON, DC/SAN FRANCISCO, CA -- To settle a lawsuit brought by 39 environmental and peace organizations including the Oakland-based Western States Legal Foundation and Livermore's Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has signed a landmark agreement which will increase public oversight of its efforts to address severe contamination problems in the nation's nuclear weapons complex. The settlement, which was delivered to Federal District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin today, ends nine years of litigation charging that DOE failed to develop its "cleanup" plans properly. DOE faced a contempt of court hearing before Judge Sporkin for not complying with a previous legal agreement in the case. "From the perspective of protecting the nation's water, air and land, this settlement is superior to the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement DOE originally agreed to prepare," said David Adelman, a Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer who represented the plaintiffs. "We now have the data, the resources and the processes necessary to make DOE's environmental work more accountable to the public." The Washington, D.C. law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein provided pro bono litigation counsel. Key elements of the settlement include: Creation of a regularly updated, publicly accessible database including details about contaminated facilities and waste generated or controlled by DOE's cleanup, defense, science and nuclear energy programs, including domestic and foreign research reactor spent fuel, listing characteristics such as waste type, volume, and radioactivity, as well as transfer and disposition plans; DOE funding for at least two national stakeholder forums to assure the database is comprehensive, accurate and useful; Completion of an environmental analysis, with public input, of plans for "long-term stewardship" at contaminated DOE sites to ensure protection of the public and the environment; More . . . . . . Continued, P. 2 of 2 Establishment of a $6.25 million fund for non-profit groups and tribes to use in monitoring DOE environmental activities and conducting technical reviews of the agency's performance; Payment of plaintiffs'legal fees and expenses incurred to litigate this case; and Continuing federal court oversight to assure adherence to the agreement. "I'm really excited! This is a major victory both for the environment and for public participation," said Marylia Kelley, of Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore, California, one of 39 plaintiff groups." We have won access to the tools the public needs to monitor DOE's compliance with the nation's obligation to address the radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production." DOE's "cleanup" program is slated to become the largest environmental project in U.S. history, with an estimated total cost of more than $250 billion. "Since the mid-1980's we've been asking for a breakdown of DOE-generated waste by program and facility," added Jackie Cabasso of Oakland's Western States Legal Foundation, a plaintiff and communications coordinator for the lawsuit. "DOE is currently gearing up its nuclear weapons research and development activities -- the same kinds of activities that created this environmental disaster. Now, for the first time, using DOE's own data, we'll be able to demonstrate the link between cause and effect, a powerful argument against any further nuclear weapons design and production." Many of the groups first sued DOE in 1989, claiming that the agency must conduct a thorough analyses before moving ahead with plans to address the radioactive and toxic legacy of nuclear weapons production and modernize its facilities. The next year, DOE signed a legal agreement promising a full public review of its proposals. In 1994, however, DOE leaders decided to abandon the Environmental Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement process without consent of the plaintiffs or Federal Court Judge Sporkin, who had approved the initial
NATIVE_NEWS: Fwd: Nya weh! A bit of good news...
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:46:00 -0500 To: "C.C. Chamberlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Laura B [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Nya weh! A bit of good news... Cc: Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Too often, it is a stuggle for respect. NOT in this case, and I want to thank C.C. Chamberlin, Webmaster, NMSU College of Agriculture and Home Economics, for an editing revision made swiftly to one of their webpages. I had been browsing for directions on how to tan deer hides, since my husband brought home his first deer last week, and found their site with some helpful info. However, I was disheartened by the too common misuse of the "s" word within their narrative I sent an email to their editorial dept, and am VERY HAPPY to share the news that not only has the page been corrected, but they have pulled printed material and are correcting it there as well. I've cc'd this to share the good news as encouragement to others. Sometimes, all we need to do is ask. And again, my heartfelt thanks to C.C. Chamberlin! The memo has gone out already to remove the print version to the places that stock it, and we are in the process of printing replacement copies with the change. I went ahead and made the change myself just now to the HTML version. I also removed the link to the PDF version, since that document contains the same error, but we need to wait for him to return to actually make the change, since the PDF's are built off of the page layouts for the print versions. When it returns to the document listing, it should be correct. Again, thanks for bringing this to our attention! C.C. Chamberlin Webmaster, NMSU College of Agriculture and Home Economics http://www.cahe.nmsu.edu/ Laura B get involved-learn the truth-spread the truth DEMAND JUSTICE FOR LEONARD PELTIER http://members.xoom.com/freepeltier/index.html http://www.dickshovel.com/Aim.Pine.html In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment ...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ `"``"``"` `"``"``"`
NATIVE_NEWS: Fwd: Peltier-letters needed
And now:Ish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:26:48 -0600 From: gina chiala [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Peltier-letters needed X-Uns*bscribe: send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/14/98 Dear Leonard Peltier supporters, Leonard wants to urge you to give one last effort to the "Singleton Decision". If you have not written to the 10th circuit yet, please do so now! If you have please urge your friends to do the same. They are deciding on it now and we should give one last show of support. Here is an explanation and sample letter. Thank you! LPDC-staff Dear Leonard Peltier Supporters, 9/11/98 Last July the 10th circuit court of appeals upheld a bribery statute 201 (c)(2) which prohibits giving, offering, or promising anything of value to a witness for or because of his testimony. Prior to this decision, this statute was not applied to the government despite the fact that the statute in no way discludes them. And, therefore, it has become common practice for prosecutors to offer suspects immunity or other valuables in exchange for testifying against a "would be" co-defendant. This can render the testimony of such a person to be unreliable since such a person may be and often are, willing to say anything to avoid prosecution. To make a long story short As you know we are working on many levels to try to gain freedom for Leonard Peltier, some of which we can not go into detail about. Leonard asks that we start a letter writing campaign to the 10th circuit and encourage them to uphold their decision once again. The fact that prosecutors have been told that they must act under the same rules that the defense must act under has enraged many. (prosecutors of course) The 10th circuit will be deciding again on this issue in November. It is very important that we bury them with letters of support. If we do not, they will surely overturn their prior decision. Remember, the government has endless resources and they are campaigning the 10th circuit also. This is important! Leonard says, "please trust me on this one, there are certain things we can not currently disclose, but please trust me." We want letters from all over, but we especially need people who live in 10th circuit states to work hard on this one. Below is a sample letter. Thank you Gina Chiala The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee Dear Honorable Tenth Circuit Justices, As a citizen and a voter of the U.S. and the district of the 10th circuit, I would like to express my praise for your recent decision to uphold 201 (c) (2) after hearing the Singleton case. I understand that you will have to decide on it again this November and I want to urge you, as a concerned citizen, to uphold your first decision. It is my belief that such a decision will help to restore many citizens' faith in the U.S. justice system. Because you have concluded that this statute applies equally to the government as it so clearly states, the scales of justice will now be more balanced. When 201 (c) (2) is not applied and the government is allowed to offer leniency or anything else of value to a co-defendant or witness it truly makes his or her testimony unreliable therefore offering an upper hand to the prosecution that the defense does not have access to. This thoroughly violates a defendant's Constitutional Right to due process. Of course, my concern is not only for the defendants who may be prosecuted unfairly, but also for the victims of those who are granted leniency or immunity for testifying. Someone such as "Sammy the Bull" surely did not deserve to be rewarded for murdering nineteen people. I find such deals to be appalling. Because this statute has not been applied to the government for so long, I am concerned for many who have been convicted because of this method and have therefore not received due process. I urge you to grant this recent motion to be made retroactive on their behalf and on the behalf of our Constitution so that these cases have a chance to be heard again to ensure that justice was given. Thank you again for your perseverance to seek true justice. Sincerely yours, Your name here 10th circuit court of appeals: 10th circuit states include: Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utahbut all are encouraged to write. Byron White US court house 1823 Stout St. Denver, CO 80257 - To subscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your email address, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with your old address in the Subject: line In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment ...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa'
