|
Yesterday in Tucson Federal Court, Christine Wallace was found guilty of failing to purchase a  US Forest Service recreation pass for $5. This is a criminal misdemeanor offense and as a consequence of this verdict, Mrs. Wallace will have a criminal record unless her case is appealed and the current conviction is overturned.
The crux of the Wallace defense has to do with whether the Forest Service had the authority to charge a recreation fee to someone who had parked on the side of a road and gone for a walk. The Forest Service claimed, and the judge, agreed that such authority was granted in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) by virtue of the fact that Wallace was within what the Forest Service is calling a "High Impact Recreation Area" (HIRA).
HIRA is a fiction. The concept does not appear within the law. It was invented by the Forest Service in their effort to circumvent the clearly stated prohibition FLREA placed upon charging merely to walk in the woods or picnic along a road, etc. Wallace is innocent and, I suggest, it is the Forest Service that is guilty of incorrectly and illegally, ticketing her parked vehicle.
Two summers ago the USFS ticketed MY parked vehicle when I was similarly parked on the side of a road in Oregon. Unlike in the Wallace case, when I told the US Attorney that I looked forward to fighting that ticket because it had been incorrectly and illegally issued, the government declined to prosecute me and my case did not go to trial.
I was innocent and was spared the frustrations, anguish and expenses that Mrs. Wallace has already endured, and will continue to endure during the appeal process that awaits her. Mrs. Wallace is innocent and yet she has been convicted. Where is the justice in this?
Pasted below is an article about yesterday's proceedings. Perhaps more interesting than the article are the associated comments which can be read on-line. Of the 70 comments already posted NOT ONE deals with the matter of Wallace's guilt or innocence.
Wallace is innocent and that is what matters. The court should have found her not-guilty and it failed to do so.
Scott
--- begin quote ---
Hiker fined $100 for disregarding $5 recreation fee
By Josh Brodesky - Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona 09.06.2007
The latest twist in the winding court saga of Mount Lemmon hiker
Christine Wallace came Wednesday when a federal judge fined her $100
for refusing to pay a recreation fee, setting up a likely appeal that
will again bring the fee's legality into question.
For several years, Wallace has been fighting the $5 fee in court,
arguing it should not apply to activities in undeveloped areas of the
mountain, such as picnicking alongside a trail or a road, but not at a
picnic table.
The legal fight began in September 2005, when Wallace was cited for not
paying the $5 fee. Her refusal to do so has led to a lengthy court
battle that has, at times, put the fee's status in jeopardy.
In January, U.S. District Judge John M. Roll ruled the $5 recreation fee was justified.
But there was still the question of the two outstanding tickets Wallace had not paid.
One of those tickets was recently dismissed, but the other one remained.
The two citations may not have been the only times Wallace had visited
Mount Lemmon without paying the recreation fee. Prosecutor Jennifer
Maldonado argued rangers had spotted Wallace's car on Mount Lemmon
before, and during those times there was no evidence fees had been paid.
The line of argument seemed to resonate with Roll, who found Wallace guilty and fined her $100.
"I find it troubling, the evidence concerning the disregard of the recreation fee," Roll said. "The fee is a modest one."
Federal law allows the U.S. Forest Service to collect a recreation fee
for destinations classified as "high-impact recreation areas."
Essentially, an area earns such a distinction if it has designated
parking, permanent restrooms, trash bins, an interpretive sign or
kiosk, picnic tables and security officers. The fee is used to help
develop the accommodations.
Visitors driving up the Catalina Highway to Mount Lemmon must pay
either $5 per day or $20 per year if they are going to use any of the
amenities.
Wallace has disagreed with the fee on principle, saying it is a form of
double taxation and it excludes visitors who might not be able to pay
it.
Roll's recent rulings have only laid the groundwork for an appeal.
"I didn't come this far just to roll over and say, 'I'm guilty,' " Wallace said.
In Wallace's defense, attorney Mary Ellen Barilotti argued there were
few amenities where Wallace had parked near Marshall Gulch, which is
just beyond the village of Summerhaven, and, as such, the fee should
not have applied in the first place. She also questioned how rangers
would know whether Wallace had used developed areas of the park.
But the arguments made little impression on Roll, who repeatedly
implored both sides to stick within the narrow confines of the criminal
issue at hand — the parking ticket — and not be distracted by the civil
matter of whether the fees are legal.
As such, the issue of whether Wallace had parked without paying the fee was fairly straightforward.
Lance Lindy, a Forest Service ranger who issued the ticket, said he
spotted Wallace's car and knew its owner had a history of not paying
the fee. While leaving a citation, he met Wallace.
"I told her I was going to write a violation notice. I asked her why
she hadn't paid them (the previous fees)," he said. "She told me that
she didn't believe in the program. That she paid taxes."
For her part, Wallace said she never expected her decision not to pay
the fees to morph into such a larger legal debate, but she will
continue to fight.
"I didn't expect anything other than being found guilty," she said.
Wallace has 10 days from this most recent ruling to file an appeal.
|
- Activism 
