WHY THE SHERIFF IS NOT REMOVING THE HARVEST CAMP PARTICIPANTS IN IRON COUNTY (STELLAREPORT)

[hue]

http://stellareport.blogspot.com/

There is obviously some confusion on the part of some Iron County Board members and Iron County Forest Administrator Joe Vairus regarding their powers and the power of the sheriff to forcibly remove tribal members or others who might be camping at the "Harvest Camp" that's been occupied for some time along Moore Park Rd. in Iron County at the site of GTAC's proposed taconite mine.

Vairus and at least one other Iron County Forestry Department employee have publicly criticized Sheriff Tony Furyk for not immediately removing people and property from the Harvest Camp pursuant to a resolution passed by the Iron County Board to evict members of the camp. Only problem is, the County Board does not have the power to evict -- that is, thankfully, left to the courts; and Sheriff Furyk has no lawful authority to forcibly remove anyone without a judgment finding a violation of the law along with an order directing him to forcibly evict individuals by name.

Iron County alleges that persons staying at the Harvest Camp are in violation of a county ordinance that limits camping in the county forest to "no more than two weeks." The ordinance goes on to state that anyone in violation of the regulation is "subject to ejection" and other penalties...

...The Iron County Board cannot evict people on its own accord, no more than you can forcibly remove a tenant who is late on his rent. The County can direct the corporation counsel to proceed with a civil action to evict if it so desires. Unless and until the county gets a court order directing the sheriff to forcibly remove people from the county forest, he is not entitled by law to do so.

[riversedge]

1. I hope all stay safe.

[dembotoz]

2. work must not have filtered all the way down that the right to be god was part of local control

taken away by the state senate and assembly

[Viking12]

3. Any attempt to evict the protestors will be struck on 1st Amendment grounds

Any decent lawyer will argue that they are not 'camping' but are engaged in protected speech/assembly. Any reasonable court would agree with that argument.