-or GOOGLE our full site -

GOOGLE the www
GOOGLE this website

Heads Up!

Wild Wilderness believes that America's public recreation lands are a national treasure that must be financially supported by the American people and held in public ownership as a legacy for future generations



Administrative Login

Lost Password?
Controlling the Brooklyn Bridge - Controlling the National Parks System
Written by Scott Silver   
Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Some may have wondered why Wild Wilderness has frequently and vigorously weighed in on the very unwilderness-like issues of road privatization and traffic congestion pricing.

We did so because those issues are reflections of our signature issue, "The Corporate Takeover of Nature." We did so because the same privatization ideologues are leading  both battles. We did so because the identical forces are at play in both issues and the same outcomes can be expected in both issues. Most of all, we did so to convince our readers that The Corporate Takeover of Nature is part of something bigger --- that being The Corporate Takeover of EVERYTHING.

Pasted below is a much condensed, new,  Jim Hightower essay. It's about the corporate takeover of roads and related transportation infrastructure. It's a topic about which I have written both directly and indirectly in many hundreds of postings that were focused upon the issues of recreation user fees and the privatization of outdoor recreation infrastructure.

When will people stand up for that which is theirs??? We're rapidly losing our shared infrastructure, our country and our democracy. Perhaps people will fight back when they understand what is at stake. The appended article helps explain what is at stake.


Last Updated ( Wednesday, 25 July 2007 )
Shafting YOU and Campground Workers
Written by Scott Silver   
Monday, 23 July 2007

Supporters of privatization claim that government is inherently inefficient and wasteful. They say that it is for THOSE reasons that outsourcing of such things as US Forest Service campgrounds and day use facilities results in savings to the taxpayer. It is, so we are told,  to save you and me money that more than 90% of all USFS campgrounds have been turned over to private concessionaires and are, for all intents and purposes, privatized. It is for this same reason that an increasing number of DAY USE AREAS are being similarly privatized.

Unfortunately we, the public, are told lies. We are told lies by the very people we, the taxpayers, employ to manage our shared public resources.

  Pasted below is an internal US Forest Service document. As you will see, it was distributed only to top ranking Forest Service leaders. I does NOT tell lies. It tells several raw, unvarnished, truths and is educational on multiple levels. I'll focus on just one, and will introduce this memorandum by reminding readers that in 1999, the US Senate was incensed to discover that concessionaires were paying minimum wages. Federal law, so everyone thought, required concessionaires to pay their workers the SAME wage as the USFS was required to its people to do identical work.

 Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) went so far as to say:

"I had no idea that this economic juggernaut would have to be sustained on the backs of minimum-wage workers cleaning out Forest Service campgrounds."

The appended Forest Service document makes it clear the concessionaires are not only NOT paying fair wages, they are scamming the system and doing it AT YOUR EXPENSE!

If you want to know what you must pay to use formerly public, but now privatized, DAY USE AREAS on your National Forest, read on.


Last Updated ( Monday, 23 July 2007 )
Hairs on the Elephant's tail
Written by Scott Silver   
Saturday, 21 July 2007

This morning I return to a topic that is but a tiny step removed from that of recreation user fees, the concept being that of road congestion pricing.

I do so because many of my peers in the conservation community are actively embracing this concept, yet they are doing so without any effort to place the issue within its larger context.

Pasted below is my attempt to provide missing context and to move the discussion beyond that of elephant tail hairs.


Last Updated ( Saturday, 21 July 2007 )
Pay-to-Play and to hell with Wilderness
Written by Scott Silver   
Saturday, 21 July 2007

Lyle Laverty, an early and fierce supporter of the "pay-to-play" concept, is in the news again. He's in the news for demonstrating the value of the "fee-demo" management paradigm he helped implement within the Forest Service when he headed that agency's recreation program. He's in the news for being part of a scandal.

Lyle Laverty may soon be confirmed as the next Department of Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. If so, he would become the third most powerful person within Interior. If confirmed, Laverty would be directly responsible for formulating outdoor recreation policy for the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Because of concerns about massive, multiple and ongoing ethics violations within the DOI, Mr. Laverty's confirmation has been being blocked by Senator Wyden. For the sake of our public lands, I sincerely hope the block remains and a new, and better, appointee is selected.

Pasted below is an example of pay-to-play working PRECISELY as its Libertarian, Free-Market and recreation industry supporters intended the program to operate.

Is this merely proof that wealth has its privileges in the pay-to-play world, or is this another ethics violation? Whichever it is, it most certainly is a valuable example of how the ideology of pay-to-play will further unfurl if Lyle Laverty is put into a position of governmental power.


PS... Laverty's congressional testimony on pay-to-play can be read here.

Last Updated ( Saturday, 21 July 2007 )
Parks Day Plea
Written by Scott Silver   
Friday, 20 July 2007

Governmental agencies within Canada are systematically destroying the park systems of that nation.

Governmental agencies within the USA are following in Canada's footsteps.

In Canada, the Libertarian think-tank known as the "Fraser Institute" has led the transformation of that nation's public parks into market based test-beds for a larger privatization agenda.

In the USA, the Libertarian think-tank known as the "Reason Foundation" has led the same charge.

Pasted below is an editorial from this morning's Canadian press keyed to tomorrow's Canadian Parks Day. IT is a plea for help for Ontario's parks.

THIS message is likewise a plea for help --- help for our parks. All of them.


Volunteer or Paid Worker?? Court to Decide
Written by Scott Silver   
Thursday, 19 July 2007

There's currently a interesting legal case before the Oregon Court of Appeals which deals with the giving of "volunteer passes" in exchange for a certain amount of labor.

Quoting from the recently published article (which is appened):

If something with value such as a ski pass is only offered to those who commit to work certain shifts, that's renumeration for a job, said Stephanie Soden, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice.

Quoting from the website of the National Park Service:

America the Beautiful – National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass – Volunteer Pass. This pass is for volunteers acquiring 500 service hours on a cumulative basis.

The federally issued America the Beautiful Volunteer Pass, valued at $80,  is offered ONLY to those who have worked 500 service hours.

Is the awarding of such a pass "renumeration" as the lower courts in Oregon have already ruled? If it is renumeration, then do the full spectrum of labor laws apply?

Interesting questions — and an important court case,  for sure.


Our Public Lands - Their Working Capital - Take Two
Written by Scott Silver   
Wednesday, 18 July 2007

The appended news article is 350 words in length and is worthy of being committed to memory by anyone who has even a passing interest in outdoor recreation. If you want the executive summary, here it is:

1) The Forest Service is spending recreation dollars fighting forest fires and as a consequence, inadequate money is available to maintain recreation facilities.

2) Facilities that can not be kept open through creative means, such as privatization, commercialization, etc., will be decommissioned and removed.

I have detailed the 10-step process by which this would unfold and encourage you to read my decade-old essay titled,  "Our Public Lands: Their Working Capital." Assess for yourself the true nature of the ONGOING threat which resulted from permitting our lands to be treated as their capital.

If you are displeased with what you discover, do something to create a different future. And if you don't know what to do, please contact me for suggestions.


"We're going to have to do more with less until we do everything with nothing." - Cid Morgan, USFS District Ranger, 2005
The shuttering
Written by Scott Silver   
Tuesday, 17 July 2007

On October 28, 2006 I wrote: "I have written many times, and with increasing frequency, about how federal land management agencies are closing and shuttering public recreation facilities."

On June 24, 2007 I followed with a piece titled "The shuttering has begun in earnest".

Today, I share with you a column from a newspaper in Upper Michigan. The headline reads, "What’s the benefit of shuttering campgrounds?"

What indeed is the benefit of shuttering campgrounds? Why is this happening on public lands all across America. Why specifically is the shuttering being focused the smaller, rustic, minimally developed, free or inexpensive to stay at, out of the way campgrounds that have long been the most popular amongst those closest to the Great Outdoors?

Why, as this column asks is "There is a push to bigger and better — such as large motor homes for camping and deep-sea charter boats for fishing — that not all residents of and visitors to our state embrace"?

Those reading the Wild Wilderness blog know the answers to these questions. You know who is to blame, because you've been paying attention.   Have you interest in helping to stop this trend, or will you be satisfied knowing what's happening, why it's happening and what the eventual outcome will be?


Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 July 2007 )
Dictating Park Policy
Written by Scott Silver   
Tuesday, 17 July 2007

The transfer of control of National Park and other public lands management to outside interests is now occurring so quickly that it is no longer efficient for me to point out single examples.  Like with an avalanche, once started the process gains speed without outside intervention. Unlike with an avalanche, the process can be stopped and even reversed. All it takes is understanding of the problem and the will to fix it.

Pasted below are excerpts from five recent articles —each of which presents another example of park policy being dictated from the outside, each published within the past seven days.

Whenever public policy is dictated, THAT is privatization. Each additional instance of privatization adds weight and momentum to a privatization avalanche.  Some of the impetus for increased privatization comes from self-serving, or commercial, profit-motivated interests. Some of the impetus comes from "friends".

I offer these five examples as evidence of the range of interferences now occurring. Next week I could, I expect, provide 6 or 7 additional examples and perhaps10 examples the week after that ... the avalanche is gaining speed that quickly.


Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 July 2007 )
Can we have democracy without society?
Written by Scott Silver   
Friday, 13 July 2007

With increasing frequency I make an effort to link the "Corporate Takeover of Nature" issue to the larger issue I call "The Corporate Takeover of Everything."  Today I'd like to link the "Corporate Takeover of Everything" to its larger context.

Pasted below are excerpts from a piece of writing coming out of London.  I share these specific excerpts because while they may appear to be unrelated to the issue of public land management here in the USA, they provides an effective summation of key points found within my hundreds of postings on the very specific topic of recreation user fees and public lands management.

Years ago Wild Wilderness gave away thousands of bumper stickers that said "Fee-Demo is UNDEMOCRATIC."

I hope the final paragraph of the appended article makes it clear why we chose that particular message.



Last Updated ( Friday, 13 July 2007 )
The Neoliberal Abyss
Written by Scott Silver   
Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Why are Canadians speaking out brilliantly and passionately against "privatization through public private partnerships" while we in the USA appear to accept this fate without so much as a whimper? Perhaps it is because the privatization agenda is several years further advanced in Canada than in the USA and because the Canadian man or woman in the street is already staring straight into the neoliberal abyss.  Here in the USA, that abyss is seemingly invisible except to those who are actively paying attention.

I have been paying attention. When I read the appended Canadian news release this morning, I saw a clear depiction of what is happening to our own National Park System, to the recreational policies affecting public lands management in general, and indeed to the transformation of America from a once-proud nation of citizens to a marketplace controlled by corporate interests and populated with passive, unthinking, consumers.

In the days ahead, pay careful attention to what the National Park Service is saying about "public private partnerships" "outcome-based management" and "client service culture". Pay careful attention to what the US Forest Service is saying about these things. Pay attention to what city, state and federal governmental agencies are saying about them. Pay attention to what the Wall Street Journal and Libertarian Think Tanks are saying and then think back upon what you've read in the news release which follows.

We are nearer to the abyss than you may think and as we approach, we are speeding up, rather than slowing down.


PS... be sure to check out the Imagine Ottawa website. It is a wonderful example of people pushing back and actively working forward a positive and democratic future.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 June 2008 )
Hiding Behind Kids
Written by Scott Silver   
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
The American Recreation Coalition was born as a direct response to the petroleum crisis of 1979.  It's mission was to ensure that Congress did nothing to infringe upon the use of gasoline for recreation and tourism.  ARC's earliest supporters included Chevron, Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and numerous motorized recreation industry leaders. Starting in 1997, and with more than a little help from Wild Wilderness, ARC's reputation as an anti-environmental organization became well established and broadly known. In recent years, the ARC has deservedly been on the receiving end of some very negative media attention.
Clearly, from the ARC's standpoint, something had to be done if they were to continue functioning as America's most influential, and successful, motorized recreation lobby. And so in an effort to recast itself as something other that what it is, the ARC has created for itself a very different media persona. Today they hide behind children.
I'd like to draw your attention to two new items. The ARC recently published the "Summary Proceedings" resulting from a series of listening sessions they and the National Forest Foundation recently held in venues from coast-to-coast. On the title page of their report, you discover that the USDA Forest Service, the American Petroleum Institute, Tread Lightly and Yamaha Motor Corporation provided national support. There were no other sponsors. 
All of the federal land management agencies participated in these forums. The report resulting from this effort WILL have a profound impact upon the management of outdoor recreation on all federally-managed public lands. Read the report and you will see how the wise-use, motorized, ARC is hiding behind children.
The other item is a new ARC's website. This one is called GETOUTDOORSUSA.ORG and here is a quote from the homepage. Additional information is provided below.
Get Outdoors USA! is the driving force behind a national movement to help our children seek out healthy, active outdoor lives and to embrace America's Great Outdoors - our parks, our forests, our refuges and other public lands and waters.
The "Kids in the Woods" issue is becoming red hot and it will drive much of the national recreational policy in the next few years. I thought folks would like to know WHO, specifically, is the driving force behind this brilliant public relations campaign.
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 10 July 2007 )
The Business-Side of Fish, Wildlife and the Great Outdoors
Written by Scott Silver   
Monday, 09 July 2007

Go to Southwick Associate's home page and you learn that:

Southwick Associates specializes in the business-side of fish and wildlife. We help natural resource agencies & the outdoor industries understand the retail sales, economic impacts, and other benefits business and people receive from wildlife and fisheries.

If we assume these people know their business, then here's a stiff dose of their cold reality:

Today, many of the driving influences in fish and wildlife management originate within state and federal legislatures, corporate boardrooms, courtrooms and media offices. These influences decide not only the financial resources available for fish and wildlife but also shape public attitudes that ultimately decide the fate of all natural resource programs.

With that in mind, I encourage you to read the appended article from the most recent Southwick Newsletter about pricing Outdoor Recreation. It begins with these important words:

Everyone remembers their Econ 101 professor saying “when prices go up, sales go down.”  This is true for fishing, hunting and other outdoor pursuits. When sportsmen pay more for fuel, we know fewer will fish and hunt. But, price increases are realized in more places than the cash register, and the effects can be severe for conservation and commerce.

I have long suggested that the rapidly increasing cost of recreation user-fees is, at least partially, to blame for declining visitation to America's National Parks and for declining recreational use of our National Forests and other public lands. The visitation trends are well established. The cause remains a matter of much debate.

Try as hard as you will, you are unlikely to find even one public land manager willing to admit the possibility of a correlation between pricing and visitation. Today's public land managers take their marching orders from outside of their own agencies, as Southwick so clearly says, and those who give the orders insist that the issue of user-fees is never discussed — or so I suggest.

  Now read the article from Southwick Associates and you'll discover that even they fail to mention the issue of user-fees in their discussion of cost-related visitation trends!! It that because people in corporate boardrooms prefer that Soutwick avoids the subjects of fees and privatization and focuses attention instead upon a very different set of recreation costs — a set of recreation costs that are of greater interest to those sitting within a board room, think tank, or private meeting between industry and government officials!?


Last Updated ( Monday, 09 July 2007 )
Downsizing toward Zero
Written by Scott Silver   
Tuesday, 03 July 2007

The CATO Institute requires little introduction. It is an  Libertarian think-tank with a mission to privatize the federal government.

Randal O'Toole, now a Senior Fellow at CATO and the author of the Forest Service "Reform Options" pasted below, may require some short introduction. O'Toole is a former environmentalist who switched sides. O'Toole was long been known for his efforts to transform outdoor recreation into a pay to play business for the USFS based upon the charging of recreation users fees and, more recently, for his almost maniacal support of sprawl.

The CATO Institute is currently running a campaign based upon a  CATO book titled "Downsizing the Federal Government." Downsizing the Department of Agriculture is part of that campaign and O'Toole has written the section on downsizing the USDA Forest Service.

In O'Toole's "Reform Options" he offers three suggestions presented in hierarchal order.

  • The first is "to allow the agency to charge fair market value for recreation and other resources."

  • The second is "to revive federalism by eliminating federal forest subsidies to the states and turning portions of the national forests over to the states."

  • The third and final reform is "full privatization of the national forests."

For those familiar with the events of the last decade, it is clear that we are already two thirds of the way to that final solution.


From an Interview with O'Toole

FC asks: Why does the establishment environmental movement embrace government solutions to environmental challenges?

Randal O'Toole Responds:
That is a really hard question to answer, because it is hard to attribute motivations to other people. But I think part of the answer is that the environmental movement has been taken over by the socialists who lost power after the fall of the Soviet Union, because it became difficult to justify being a socialist any more in any realm except for the environmental realm. Polls showed that Americans were opposed to socialism except that they believed in government intervention to protect the environment. So socialists were drawn to the environmental movement and that changed the movement to its own detriment. 

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 03 July 2007 )
Bulldozing Wilderness and Spirit
Written by Scott Silver   
Monday, 02 July 2007

The Seattle Times recently published a lengthy cover story framed around  two questions,  quoted here as they appear in the article:

  • Is a national park supposed to be a crown jewel of American wilderness, a place protected from the bulldozers and strip malls that define much of our lives?

  • Or is it a "park," an outdoor playground for the masses, shaped for everyone's enjoyment and run to help businesses profit along the way?

Those familiar with my work will know my answers to those questions. I need not repeat them here. Unfortunately, and as this article confirms, today's National Park Superintendents rarely agree with my positions. And that being the case, I'd like to pose for you two questions of my own:

  • Why do high ranking National Park officials almost invariable fail to understand and accept the fact that they are employed by you and me to serve as custodians of our nation's crown jewels in accordance with long held traditions and in compliance with existing laws and precedents?

  • What more must the American People do to ensure that high ranking public servants of all stripes show more respect for them and less subservience to business interests and the pursuit of profits?

The Seattle Times article is long. I have provided a much condensed version below as well as a link to the original piece.


Last Updated ( Monday, 02 July 2007 )
Closing the National Forests
Written by The Source Editorial Board   
Sunday, 01 July 2007

(From: The Source Weekly)

Bend Oregon - If you head out to your favorite campground in one of Oregon’s National Forests this summer, you may well discover it’s no longer there.

For the past two years the U.S. Forest Service has been engaged in a process called Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RSFMP). The bureaucratic rationale is complicated, but it all boils down to this: Each of the more than 16,000 National Forest recreation sites in the country – more than 2,600 of them in Oregon and Washington – has to demonstrate that it can pay for itself or it will be closed.

Oregon National Forests were among the first in the country to begin the RSFMP process, and the tangible results are now starting to appear. For example, the Curry Coastal Pilot reported on Saturday that the Rogue-Siskyou National Forest has closed 24 campgrounds and three picnic sites. Can the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests be far behind?

Not only are facilities being closed, but drastic budget cuts, including a 46% cut in funding for maintenance over the past two years, are forcing National Forests to reduce or eliminate services – such as providing toilets – at those that aren’t.

The National Forest shutdown is being justified by the need to pour money into President Bush’s “Healthy Forests Initiative,” which aims to make forests healthy by cutting down the trees. Philosophically, it dovetails perfectly with the administration’s broad aim of starving all government services – or at least those that benefit average Americans rather than big corporations and their major stockholders.

Critics, such as Scott Silver of Bend-based Wild Wilderness, see an even deeper and darker motive: They believe the funding cuts and the RSFMP process are steps toward the “Disneyfication” of recreation facilities on federal lands – turning them into money-making enterprises, or maybe even handing them over to private corporations to operate as concessions.

Even if you don’t buy that sinister theory, it’s not hard to see why the present policy is short-sighted and destructive. Closing facilities, making them prohibitively expensive or making them difficult or impossible to enjoy because of a lack of basic amenities shuts off access to the only recreation many working people can afford. It also has a negative impact on communities near National Forests whose economies depend largely or partly on the dollars that visitors to those forests spend.

It’s ironic that an administration that likes to attack “environmental elitists” for wanting to “lock up” public lands has turned out to be the biggest locker-upper of such lands in American history.

When the U.S. Forest Service was founded more than a hundred years ago during the Theodore Roosevelt administration, its first chief, Gifford Pinchot, summed up its job as "to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run." The administration’s approach seems designed to provide the greatest number of dollars to a handful of people in the short run.

It’s a lousy way to run our National Forests – but it’s an excellent way to earn THE BOOT. 

Last Updated ( Sunday, 01 July 2007 )
Your recreation pass is worthless
Written by Scott Silver   
Friday, 29 June 2007

Almost daily I am hearing from or about people who having paid $30, $50, $80, $95 or more for a federally issued public lands recreation pass, and who have just discovered that their pass doesn't provide the access they expected. Let me explain what's going on.

Private concessionaires are not required to accept the America the Beautiful Pass or the Golden Age Pass, Adventure Pass, Tonto Pass, Red Rock Pass, etc. for general access or use — and they have no reason to do so.  When a land management agency privatizes a recreation site, be it a picnic area, a boat launch, swimming beach, etc. by turning it over to a concessionaire, that site is no longer freely accessible to citizens or visitors. The concessionaire, being in the business of providing recreation for a profit,  will demand payment for access and will expect payment in the form of cash, check or credit card. Passes issued by the government are not accepted forms of currency.

And as profitable recreation sites are being privatized,  unprofitable recreation sites are being closed or, as the USFS prefers to say, they are simply not being opened for the season.  I've blogged on this phenomenon already twice this week and, be assured,  this trend is rapidly accelerating.

Pasted below yet another, somewhat different, illustration of what's going on. In this example, a hiker who having purchased a Tonto National Forest recreation pass for $95 discoverers that site where he wanted to hike on Tuesday was closed and off-limits between sundown on Sunday and Friday at 4:00 PM.

As outdoor recreation on our public lands is transformed from being a benefit of citizenship to being a revenue generating commodity, optimized for profitability, please understand that if a recreation site or opportunity doesn't pay, chances are it is going away.


Last Updated ( Friday, 29 June 2007 )
If Parks were Museums or even Pizza
Written by Scott Silver   
Thursday, 28 June 2007

If National Parks were museums, there would be no debate whether entrance fees discouraged visitation.

Everyone the world over knows that entrance fees discourage museum visitation. Those nations which place a high value upon their children, education, heritage and culture have already discovered the value of providing FREE access to public museums and galleries.  Nations that have abandoned museum entrance fees have already seen visitation soar 100% or more.

But America's National Parks are not museums and in this country, many of our legislators and virtually all public lands managers strenuously deny even the possibility that declining park visitation could be correlated to soaring entrance fees. 

Are parks and museums so very different the whereas fees take an enormous toll upon visitation to museums, they have no similar impact upon park visitation?

Or is it possible that the people of the United States are so very different than the people of England and France that what is true elsewhere in the world is just not true in our country?

Or is it possible that those who are responsible for the rapidly increasing entrance fees in our National Parks (and we do know who those people are -- do we not?), simply do not place as high a value upon children, education, heritage and culture as do the people and legislators of other nations???

Pasted below are excerpts from two recent articles on museum entrance fees and here are two links to other of my recent blogs on the issue of museum entrance fees and how these fees and visitation are directly correlated (click and click).

As for the farcical pizza connection, does the fundamental economic market concept of 'price elasticity' illustrated in this pizza graph apply to everything except parks?


Last Updated ( Thursday, 28 June 2007 )
Cheney Left Plenty of Tracks
Written by Scott Silver   
Wednesday, 27 June 2007

Today's Washington Post features an article about Vice President Cheney under the headline "Leaving No Tracks." I've quoted a small passage of it below — one dealing with the issue of snowmobiling in Yellowstone and with administration efforts to commercialize, privatize and motorize America's National Parks.

Pasted immediately below todays WP article I've provided a short passage from a 2001 "Trail Tracks Newsletter" — the voice of a pro-motorized recreation advocacy organization. That article had been given the headline "Outdoor recreation groups meet with Bush Team" and was written by the American Recreation Coalition's President Derrick Crandall.

Pasted immediately below that is a broadcast message I shared with the Wild Wilderness network on January 6, 2001. I had titled that message "Motorized Message to President Elect" and those who make the effort to read it today will discover precisely why Vice President Dick Cheney did not need to tell his people what needed doing with regard to snowmobiling in Yellowstone, with National Park policy revisions or, for that matter, with regard to anything associated with the radical transformation of outdoor recreation on America's public lands which has occurred in recent years.

Cheney delegated that authority to his industry friends... or so I would suggest.


Last Updated ( Wednesday, 27 June 2007 )
The Criminal and the ARC
Written by Scott Silver   
Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Convicted felon J. Steven Griles had asked that for his punishment he be permitted to work for his old friends and associates at the American Recreation Coalition.

Just moments ago, a federal judge ruled that Griles must go to prison instead.

As news of Griles' incarceration spreads, I sincerely hope that many more media outlets associate the criminal and the ARC.... as does the article which appears below.


Last Updated ( Tuesday, 26 June 2007 )
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 161 - 180 of 750

Fair Use Notice:    This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, human rights, political, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


viagra soft tabs 50mg
viagra sales online
viagra discount prices
viagra 100mg pills
viagra 100mg cheap
cialis professional tadalafil
generic viagra in united states
buy viagra women
cheap cialis canada
cialis soft tabs generic
no prescription sleeping tablets female viagra in australia canadian pharmacy online doctor non prescription antibiotics canada viagra buy online australia
buy cialis in australia cialis online in usa best no prescription needed online pharmacy buy cialis online cheap online viagra for sale
cialis soft tabs 20mg buying cialis no prescription buy cheap cialis uk online drug store worldwide shipping cialis 10 mg price
buy generic drugs online canada pharmacy worldwide shipping cheap cialis generic online buy viagra in houston propecia uk no precription
canadian healthcare online pharmacy generic cialis best price best no prescription canadian pharmacy viagra pills for sale prescription drugs without a doctor
buy cialis in usa buy cialis online canada levitra online without prescription viagra generic in australia pharmacy with no prescription
buy cialis no prescription uk viagra online without prescription from india viagra canada pharmacy
viagra cost in canada
viagra online free shipping viagra online for women viagra soft tabs uk