Regulatory Matrix

From: Thomas, P.O. Box 27217, Washington, D.C. 20038

To: Carla (All Ways Free). P.O. Box 24714, Eugene, Oregon 97402

June 13, 1993

Dear sister & those relations who may share your perception,

You wrote to me asking that I "not mix Rainbow Legaliaison material & Peace Park, Proposition One stuff, etc. in the same envelope." You informed me that you "plan to also bring it up in the Council at the Gathering." I honestly thought your concerns had been resolved by our phone conversation of May 28th.

It is difficult to understand why you can't see THE FACT (as distinct from an opinion) that the proposed Forest Service regulations, and the regulations in Peace Park share precisely the same legal precedents. E.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non- Violence, 468 U.S. 290, see, Fed. Reg. May 6, 1993, page 26940. "We Are One," it says next to your picture. Yet, you seem to think that "we" (Rainbow) are different than "you" (Peace Park). If, God forbid, this regulation is enacted you will understand that Rainbow was neither holier nor wiser than Peace Park. I mention this so, should my dire predictions come to pass, we will share a better understanding then than we do now.

Likewise, in my opinion, Proposition One stuff is no more political, and no less related to this "Rainbow cause" (but, in the long run, more practical) than "Plan B" -- which, except for prioritization, we have been following anyway. Even if you disagree about relatedness and practicality, but assuming you still value a well informed consensus process, it seems you'd have mentioned Proposition One, if not as part of Plan B, at least as a proposed "Plan C." Again, because you may not grasp the connections now doesn't mean the connections don't exist.

Frankly, I thought it was a little extreme for you to be concerned about a "Legaliaison Council." Nonetheless your objection was honored, the meeting was renamed "Freedom of Belief, Expression and Assembly Council." The only reason you've given for opposing a D.C. Council is that you "can't" make it to D.C. in July. Fine, stay at home and write letters to your congressperson, but please, for the First Amendment's sake, don't throw obstacles in the way of those who may want to do more.

Finally, it was the Rainbow Family who came to me requesting I devote time and energy to this matter, rather than vis-a-versa. You may, of course, raise anything you like in Council, but, in the interest of the Family, I suggest that we not waste more Family time, energy and focus on well-intentioned non-issues.

In service to understanding,

D.C. Scribe

There are FACTS and there are OPINIONS. In the opinion of Legaliaison\DC the opinions expressed by All Ways Free concerning the Forest Service plan to restrict gatherings ignore some very important facts. Moreover All Ways Free has done a considerable disservice both to the Family and to truth in general by publishing a one-sided presentation of the regulatory situation.

All Ways Free states, "The problem we have been facing for years, and which faces us now, is that the comments the Forest Service are asking us to make within the current 90-day public commentary period will be addressed to the same bureaucrats in their ranks that have been working for years to make the Regulations a reality."

That statement mixes OPINION with FACT. The fact is that the Forest Service has been working on this specific regulation for years. But an equally valid opinion about "the problem which faces us now" it that the government (administrative ["bureaucratic"], judicial and legislative branches) has progressively enacted, enforced, and condoned ever more restrictive regulations, and this particular regulation is merely the "logical" extension of ever more restrictive policies.

All Ways Free has a neat little solution, blame "the bureaucrats," write to your congressperson are only part of the problem.

FS Regs Page | Public Views | Government Views | Rainbow in Court
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue