Single Page
Wilde Yukon River verdict met with hostility in FairbanksA federal magistrate's decision to convict an elderly Interior Alaska man of criminal charges for confronting National Park Service rangers on the Yukon River last fall did not seem to be sitting well with Fairbanks residents Tuesday. Once more, many of them seemed to be saying, 72-year-old Jim Wilde was getting shafted for daring to stand up and question how the U.S. government does business in the 49th state. This time the man handing out the punishment was U.S. District Court magistrate Scott Oravec, who ruled that no matter how "unwise" it might have been for Wilde to follow the order of rangers to shut down his a riverboat in the middle of the fast-flowing Yukon, the Central resident was duty-bound to comply. Oravec ruled Wilde guilty of "interfering with a (government) agency function," guilty of "violating a lawful order,'' and guilty, above all, of "operating an unregistered boat." Wilde's attorney, Bill Satterberg of Fairbanks, had wanted a trial by jury, but saw his client denied that because of the relatively petty nature -- by federal standards -- of the charges. Satterberg had been of the opinion a jury of Wilde's Interior Alaska peers would have set his client free in a blink, and judging from reactions in Fairbanks, where Wilde was tried in April, he might have been right. The Fairbanks Daily News Miner put up a five-paragraph story outlining the Oravec ruling on its website shortly after the decision was made public. Within a matter of hours, a string of comments had been published that was far longer than the article itself. Some in the heartland of the Alaska Independence Party seemed on the verge of calling for a second American Revolution. Antifederalism flares up again in FairbanksA commenter using the name "bottomfish" quoted Revolutionary War hero and American President George Washington's warning that "government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servent and a fearful master." Another commenter, "Tommyguns," got right to the point: "Past time for an Alaska Spring. Throw the !@#$%^& feds out of our beautiful state NOW!" All this the fallout from an incident that began with two youngish rangers baiting the crusty, old Wilde into stopping his riverboat on the Yukon during moose hunting season last year. The rangers acted as if their boat was disabled and flagged Wilde down. He started to come to their aid until he realized what was up, and then things turned ugly. That was the one thing everyone who testified at Wilde's April trial agreed on. The rangers told Wilde they wanted to inspect his boat. He launched into a stream of profanity during which "cocksuckers" might have been the mildest word used, according to testimony at the trial. Wilde admitted later that he'd lost his cool and shouldn't have done what he did. Park rangers Joe Dallemolle and Ben Grodjesk were less reconciliatory. They stuck to their story that not only had Wilde fled their riverblock, but then tried to, or at least indicated he might try to, ram and sink their boat. For this, Wilde had been charged with disorderly conduct. Even Oravec refused to hold for the government on that charge. There just wasn't evidence to support it, he said. The story that came out at trial, in fact, made rangers far more the aggressors than Wilde. When he veered toward shore -- he said it was to beach the boat to talk to rangers in a safe location; rangers said it was to flee -- rangers gave chase. When Wilde didn't stop as they wanted, Dallemolle pulled his sidearm and pointed it at the old man. When that still didn't get what Dallemolle called "compliance," he grabbed the shotgun and aimed it at Wilde, his 73-year-old wife, Hannelore, and elderly friend Fred Schenk. Dallemolle said he was going to make sure the old folks didn't flee, though where he thought they might be fleeing was never clear.
Fairbands Magistarte nuts! What are we going to do? We can't let the government get away with this. Next time it will be you. We'll have to make a stand at some point. This is government OBEDIENCE TRAINING. They are destroying our liberty and our way of life. We'll have to make a stand at some point. Rangers Dallemolle and Grodjesk violated Alaska State law, and they must be indicted and tried in Alaska courts. Checkpoints are illegal in Alaska - they violate the Alaska State Constitution. Police in Alaska cannot stop you without Probable Cause. These rangers had no Probable Cause, but they detained Mr. Wilde illegally, and they mustn't get away with it. We must require the Feds to follow Alaska state law. Dallemolle and Grodjesk also detained (arrested) people for not showing identification. However, this is illegal. Alaska is not a “Stop and Identify” State. There is no Alaska law requiring you to show identification to the police on demand. Detaining people for not identifying themselves is illegal in Alaska. The laws on stop and identify were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel versus Nevada. The Federal Government believe they don’t have to follow even Federal law in Alaska. The Federal government has gone lawless in Alaska, and they must be brought to justice. Insist that these Feds be indicted for their crimes. Why have these lawless Feds not been indicted by Alaska Grand Jury? What is going on here? Warrants must be issued for the arrest of Dallemolle and Grodjesk and their superiors who conspired to violate our laws. Where are our Alaska state “leaders?” Are our “leaders” cowering before the Feds, or licking their boots? We must demand action. If the Federal Magistrate's actions were improper, he has no immunity for illegal actions. The Feds must abide by Alaska State law. We must insist on it. The time is now. They are attempting to crush us under the Federal heel. Patriots take heed. This is Lexington. This is Concord. True Americans will not abide tyranny. "These rangers had no Probable Cause..." This is a mistake by the Park & Fed, comparable to their policy of forbidding firearms on Park lands, which they did throughout most of the Twentieth Century, and howled bloody murder when Congress recently forced them to start abiding by the Constitution. This, too, is a fundamental Constitutional issue. This is just "SHOW ZEE PAPERS!", under the Stars & Stripes. The history books will not be kind to these yo-yos. They have done this for decades & generations. What on earth could they be thinking? That nobody will notice, or care? Well, Craig, you've studied Joe Vogel well, I'm sure. You know John McPhee's "Coming into the Country" vignettes clearly, no doubt; esp. of the Eastern Interior. There are downloadable audio recordings of veterans of the ANILCA process archived at University ... a 'rogues gallery' of them, the living characters McPhee drew from. You saw the anti-Park signs in Eagle that were left right where they were erected, until they slowly disintegrated in rotten tatters. Right? It was the National Land Claims, that precipitated/provoked all of that. That, and the effort to run folks off the Country which followed, and in the view of some, continues. America would be far better off if Alaska became a separate country. Selling it back to Russia would be highest and best use (financially speaking), but perhaps the local peasantry could arrange for their independence. I don't really care. Obviously, handing 10% of the votes in the U.S. Senate to a handful of backwater nincompoops is deeply harmful to representative democracy. To say nothing of the vast subsidies to Alaska that the U.S. taxpayer must, unfortunately bear for privilege of "owning" the place. That said, give a young man a gun and some "authority" and you've got a potential problem, as anybody knows about the cops. I am pretty sure selling Alaska back to Russia is a pretty unrealistic notion-considering it was never Russia's to sell in the first place, any revenues they received were a pretty good deal for them. The purpose of "purchasing" Alaska was for access to resources and strategic purposes with respect to advancement of foreign policy and the misplaced notions of Manifest Destiny. The argument that it turned out to be a "bad deal" for future generations of American taxpayers is a latent consequence and open to interpretation. Once the Federal government assumed ownership for the economic and political benefit of the country, it also assumed the responsibility of providing services and funding of the inhabitants. Federal subsidies would not be so necessary if the Fed were to release the significant land holdings it has and has established as National forests and wildlife refuges. Not to say this is a bad thing, but when you hold a majority of a states resources locked away, what other feasible options are there for a state to secure revenues it needs for public projects and maintenance of facilities and roads? It is true that significant federal dollars are spent in Alaska, yet the lower 48 enjoys a lot of benefits from Alaskan resources, such as oil, coal, timber, salmon and other fisheries, as well as a National recreation site where people travel from around the world to experience, as well as a strategic geographical feature with respect to National defense. All that being said, I am sure a lot of Alaskan's would love to see the US and Alaska sever its relationship. Although I don't consider that to be a feasible policy either considering our reliance on federal subsidies. The U.S. Senate has 100 seats, which reflects that each of 50 States gets 2 senators. Alaska, like all the other states, has 2 senators. Out of a total of 100. Pretty basic arithmetic says AK has 2% of those votes. You came up with a percent 5 times, or 500% over. It is probably true, though, that even without Sarah Palin, the people of Alaska exert a disproportional leadership role in the USA. Average voters respond well to what Alaska symbolizes & stands for. There are certain groups of people & viewpoints, who grit their teeth at the Libertarian/Conservative influence that Alaska has on American voters. Well beyond their Congressional standing, I don't doubt. Could even be 500%, I suppose. But then, the broad American audience is evidently primed for an Alaskan message. Well, first off, with all due respect to Craig, I agree that using Newsminer comments is shallow, and I'm sure those quoted are gonna really think they are important facilitators of public opinion now. "Hey, I was quoted by Craig Medred!" Those of us who've followed and been involved in this thing aren't surprised at this decision. At least I'm not. I'm certainly glad the disorderly conduct charge was dismissed. What else do folks expect from a federal magistrate when someone basically tells fed rangers to f**k off? I only hope that the magistrate understands that this thing needs to go away and he doesn't ding Jim too hard at sentencing. Certainly no jail time. This never should have gone as far as it did to begin with. And yes, William Andrews is right, this can be a training, coaching and counseling issue for NPS, certainly I and others have suggested we need an Alaska-specific training course for all new staff and particularly for all LE staff coming right out of FLETC federal LE training. We are not the lower-48, Alaska units and Alaskans differ considerably. I spoke with Ben Grodjesk in late May, he was at an NPS meeting I and some other subsistence stakeholders attended to work on Yukon Charley issues. I again told him I thought what he and Joe did with Jim was wrong, handled very poorly, inquired as to his transfer to Yosemite, both he and Sue Masica, our AK regional NPS director, felt he was "better suited" for "that type of environment." Which perfectly emphasizes the problem we have with some NPS LE staff in Alaska who have been trained like they were going to be stationed in the very place Ben was transferred to. Hey Sue, and any other NPS folks who are reading this...LET'S GET AN AK-SPECIFIC COURSE GOING TO ENSURE THIS KIND OF CRAP DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. The judge is unfit to serve on the bench. Appeal. That kind of an irrational rule can not be allowed to stand. The incident sounds like a training, coaching, and counseling issue for the National Park Service. We have young, inexperienced officers clumsily handling their authority when dealing with a difficult situation. Although I feel it is important to enforce the law and ensure the public is managing resources within the boundaries of law, you need to exercise discretion and use reasonable force to uphold the law. Drawing firearms on elderly folks for wanting to beach their boat is not a reasonable measure to take considering there was no threat to life or limb. I would agree it would be frustrating to have citizens not cooperating, but that is where professionalism, decisiveness, and leadership traits come into play. The Rangers over-reacted to petty transgressions where there was no clear need of the use of deadly force to uphold the law. Count me as another a them-thar 'antifederalists', Mr. Medred. The Park Service has been out of line, and over the line, for generations. Recently, their 'tradition' of arbitrarily denying the applicability of the 2nd Amendment throughout Park lands, was terminated by Congress. Park Rangers make it a casual practice to approach, intercept and stop members of the public involve solely in activities such "standing" or "walking" or "sitting" and otherwise DOING NOTHING ... and conduct saccharine "interrogations". No. That is absolute - anti-Constitutional - bullshit. 'Business as usual' with the Park, tho. Antifederalist? We shall see. My gosh, Craig, now you've finally hit rock bottom. Reporting on anonymous reader comments on the Newsminer website. Wowie: No jury trial. No justice. There was another incident last Saturday afternoon on the Stampede road near Healy involving Rangers, Troopers, an injured civilian and an ambulance. Don't know the details but the civilian was treated in the Tri Valley fire department ambulance and then escorted to a trooper car in the presence of Rangers. Wonder if the rangers rescued someone out the Stampede road and why the Rangers were patroling on four wheelers on State land? Seems like they want the rest of us to stay off Park land with our wheelers... Land on both sides of the Stampede Trail are in Denali National Park. About a mile near the Teklanika Crossing is actually in the park. Issues for NPS are illegal ATV use in the park lands beyond state land boundaries. There are old trails, most illegal, that are used, especially during hunting season. Furthermore, beyond the Sushana River is in the park, and most people in the area know that the Stampede Trail goes far beyond the Sushana. Although the Trail is poor beyond there, many hunters will parallel the river along the park boundary. I don't like NPS bothering me, and the current Denali contingent is much more park cop than park ranger, but there is some validity to their presence. Bottom line, it is illegal to operate ATVs on park lands unless there is an approved right of way trail, and the Stampede itself is the only one, and only through the Tek corridor. I certainly don't mind ATVs restricted on at least some of Alaska lands. So you'd rather that the person they rescued as they were traveling from point A to point B remain unrescued? Not to speak for anyone else but I would rather they were not traveling from point "A" to point "B" in the first place. It would not hurt to start showing the Fed's the same kind of restrictions and hassles that they tend to show us. Can you imagine it? Every time a Fed is found on state or private property demand permits, identification, conduct searches, restrict methods of travel and of course arrest at gunpoint for the slightest non compliance would have to be standard practice. It seems to me that the ranger's actions got them the response they'd get from many remote residents. Regarding the comment "Dawson is a booming community of 1,300 on the largely gravel North Klondike Highway that runs straight from Whitehorse to Chicken, Alaska.", Dawson isn't booming by any standards I recognize, and the all-paved North Klondike Highway sure as hell doesn't run straight from Whitehorse to Chicken. Your travel knowledge is as poor as some folks think your legal knowledge is. Booming is a relative term. Compared to Eagle, I think it's fair to say Dawson is booming, don't you? Craig, just as an fyi, us locals consider the Top of the World Hwy to be the section between the "Y" on the Taylor Hwy and where it meets the Yukon River across from Dawson. The "Y" is just a bit north of Chicken, so if you're coming from the Tetlin side you turn right and you head to Boundary and the border, turn left to Eagle. TOTW Hwy is gravel, the Taylor is chip-seal from Tetlin to Chicken, rest is all gravel. Issue of to much park land needs to be resolved. Issue of park rangers jurisdiction on continguous land needs to be resolved. 2011 minus 1959 equals 52 years in getting things done-- thanks Jimmy Carter. Jimmy should worry about democracy in his own lands. The idea that the rangers can lawfully order you to do something dangerous is absurd and tricking the old man into coming to their aid is indefensible. Were the agents wearing brown shirts and jack boots? Medred: Is your bias in this case so obvious that you can't even be bothered to read the decision properly before firing this inflammatory article off to the web? It is extremely disturbing. For one thing, the disorderly conduct case is neither more, nor less, serious than any of the other three charges. They each carry identical consequences. And he was found not guilty of disorderly conduct not for your phony, illusory reason, but simply because, in a previous precedent-setting case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that there must be an unwilling public victim of the behavior, and the law enforcement officer(s) at the scene cannot be considered the "public" for this purpose. So even though Wilde endangered his passengers, because they made no complaint and there was no other member of the public at the scene, the charge couldn't be sustained. They should have more properly charged him with assault. The Magistrate never said the rangers' behavior was "unwise." He was simply restating that the defense contended that their behavior was unwise. And you state that the magistrate found as "irrelevant" the question of jurisdiction. That is true, but not because he refused to consider it, as you slyly infer, but because the argument had already been ruled upon in a previous docket. There are many more errors in your article but even more concerning to me is the inflammatory nature of your prose. IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE COMMENTARY, THEN IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY LABELED AS SUCH BECAUSE THIS IS NOT REPORTING. No way no how. So can anyone help me out here? How can the court disregard evidence? The question of policing authority was raised and remains unanswered in this opinion. The court, in offering that it “disregards this evidence as irrelevant." Indicates two things very clearly; first it Leaves the question open for appeal and second it indicates a judge who lacks the needed cojones to offer a ruling either way. I think Magistrate Oravec had plenty of cojones. For him to come back with this decision shows more cahones than good sense. Does he plan to continue to live here. Maybe he's moving to Mars. Whatever they paid him as Judas Goat to sell out Alaska was not worth it. Oravec may lack good sense, but I can't see that he lack cahones. It was previously ruled upon a few months ago which is why it is "irrelevant" now. Wilde's argument, and the state's argument, were found to be without merit back then. But now that judgement has been entered they can appeal to the district court and then to the ninth circuit on the issue. I think it will not be successful and considering the mileage our politicians get from trumpeting this foolishness, they'd be fools to actually have an appeals court decide the issue once and for all. They'd have one less thing to moan about when it was time for good ole populist politics. Yes, better to have it unresolved. It's hard to argue with the judge's ruling. It is, however, also hard to understand why the Park Service pressed this case. You can't really blame the judge for upholding the law. You can certainly blame the parkies for being unreasonable. The above article (with its helpful corrections) is informative and entertaining, yet has serious problems. Its facts are clouded by author's generously offered opinions and analysis, the validity of which is unestablished and which may be reasonably doubted. PS: Their success would significantly improve representative democracy in America, as well as its financial burdens. The amusement provided by Palin, while welcome, just doesn't pay for itself. And yes, this Fairbanks reporter just doesn't cut it according to even fourth-rate J-School standards with his tin-pot opinion and supposed analysis. Perhaps he is overly impressed with his recent move to the big city? Obviously he aspires to something less than the Gold-Standard of Anglo-American journalism. |
Comments