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