As individuals Legaliaison/DC and the Peace Park Family invite:


Any actions or opinions of Legaliaison used to be subject to approval of Rainbow Family Tribal Council July 1-7, on the land. We pray this tradition will endure. In the past there was sometimes difficulty in achieving consensus on where "the land" would be. This year, assuming the "the Council" is in both Kentucky and Alabama, it may be hard to even reach consensus on where "the land" was. Certainly there is division. May we each listen with care to the perceptions of our relations, bending our ears so as not to be offended by sincere questions and opinions.

End Of The Rainbow, Or A New Beginning?

Annually, from July 1-7, for the past 21 years the Rainbow Family of Living Light has gathered on the land to celebrate unity and to pray for peace on earth. So far this year the Family has been unable to even agree on a state in which the unity and prayer for peace will happen. Thus, this July there may be two (three, counting Rainbow Pagan Tribes') separate gatherings for unity and peace, divided by opinion and/or ego, and about three hundred miles. Up to now this diversity has been "constitutionally protected." Since the United States began some two hundred years ago, it has been taken for granted that citizens have an INALIENABLE RIGHT to freely assemble on public lands.

Unfortunately, this year the Rainbow Family also faces, perhaps, the greatest threat to its continued existence that it has ever encountered. The Forest Service has been doing public relations. The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard (May 8, 1993) has reported, "the Forest Service has proposed new regulations requiring equal treatment for large groups of people seeking permits to gather in national forests." Having grown quite accustomed to being regulated, the American public may well mistake this government misinformation for the truth. In fact, if enacted this regulation would have the effect of transforming the "constitutionally protected" traditional Rainbow Gathering into a crime, punishable by fine or prison.

Owing to the brilliant intellectual diversity of the Rainbow Family, in addition to a physical schism there also appears to be a spiritual/intellectual/legal/political/whatever split.

Legaliaison\DC feels caught between a police state scheme designed to crush individuality and a torrent of individual trips. On the one hand many many folks have been calling Legaliaison with queries, information, misinformation, rumors and advice about the site of the Gathering. Because Legaliaison is (1) very preoccupied with efforts to derail the government's regulation, (2) has no preference where the site may be, and (3) is deeply disturbed that, in the face of this monumental threat to the Family's very existence, there seems to be enough disunity to insure the Family's demise; our position on the site is: don't ask us, VOTE WITH YOUR FEET!

"PLAN B" vs. ????

All Ways Free (AWF) published a specific "Plan B" (page 16), which leaves us wondering, what the heck was "Plan A?" For months Legaliaison\DC has been vigorously promoting the exact five points which are "Plan B." While the AWF article shows that different organs of the Family body are on the same sheet of music, it also indicates deep intrinsic misunderstanding. United we may stand, misunderstanding we'll fall for sure.

All Ways Free notes that there are "risks involved in ... a constitutional challenge." A few FACTS to consider, the regulation was conceived by the Reagan/Bush crew, has been blessed by the Clinton crew, is aimed at a bunch of "hippies," and, odds are, any legal challenge will be decided by a Reagan or Bush appointed court. Seems risky indeed to expect the system's courts will rule in favor of the hippies and against POLICIES endorsed under three presidential administrations.

All Ways Free freely mixes OPINION with FACT (page 16): "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."

True, bureaucrats have been working on regulations for years. But "the problem ... which faces us now" might well be that, simply because they are "just doing their job," bureaucrats have been writing progressively restrictive regulations which the government (administrative, judicial and legislative branches) then enacts, enforces, and condones -- which the American public apathetically acquiesces to -- ever more oppressive POLICIES. There is a very real possibility that this regulation is merely the "logical" extension of such POLICIES.

If AWF's opinion is correct, and we fervently pray it is, then maybe all we need do is identify the pesky bureaucrats so Mr. Clinton can send them packing and save the constitution. If Legaliaison's opinion is closer to reality, then "Plan B" alone will prove to be a misprioritized, wholly inadequate placebo, and the real "problem" -- a spiritually bankrupt system of government which has placed itself entirely beyond the law -- will triumph.

Because we think "Plan B" is not nearly enough, we will host a "Freedom of Belief, Expression and Assembly Council," beginning the 2nd week in July in D.C. A voice from All Ways Free objected because a "Legaliaison Council" had not been consensed to on "the Land." Asked what, besides process, justified the objection, the only concern stated was that that person "can't" make it to D.C. in July. Got that problem? Fine, stay home, write letters to your federal representatives/bureaucrats, or do what you can. But please, for the First Amendment's sake, don't discourage those who might actually be willing to actually do something.


Spiritually/politically/whatever speaking, based on our reading of All Ways Free, and a note from its editorial staff, we are disturbed to find that some of what may be the Family's keenest philosophical minds feel that we have "mix(ed) Rainbow Legaliaison material & Peace Park, Proposition One stuff."

The simple FACT (as distinct from an opinion) is that the proposed Forest Service regulations and the regulations in Peace Park share precisely the same legal precedent: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 290, see, Fed. Reg. May 6, 1993, page 26940. If this regulation is enacted those who now fail to apprehend this fact will understand that the "Rainbow Family cause" was really not so different from the "Peace Park cause." We stress this opinion now so that, God forbid, our dire prediction -- that the courts can't be trusted to undo bad law -- does come to pass, we may then share a better understanding with those wonderfully optimistic brothers and sisters who presently trust the courts to uphold their right of peaceable assembly.

Legaliaison has no brilliant minds. Its opinions and suggestions are based purely on exhaustive personal experience with the regulatory process, judicial procedure and pro-active "law" enforcement tactics. In court the argument will not be about abridging freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly or petition, but whether the proposed abridgement, in light of legal precedent, constitutes a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction." To pretend that "Rainbow" has no connection to "Peace Park" is to ignore key precedents.

In addressing issues of this magnitude, we are dealing with SYSTEMIC problems. Proposition One is a grassroots international voter initiative campaign which will officially be going to D.C. voters on the September 14, 1993 ballot as Initiative #37. Law may be either reasonable or ruthless, creative or destructive. When enough people agree on something, anything can become law.

As law, PROPOSITION ONE would initiate significant SYSTEMIC change. Once enough people agree that Proposition One is the law, humanity would have a legal foundation for converting destructive industries into meeting human needs, and converting the POLICY of Peace through Pro-active Enforcement into one of PEACE THROUGH JUSTICE.

In our humble opinion "Proposition One stuff" is no more political, no less related, but, in the long run, potentially more practical to the "Rainbow cause" than "Plan B." Assuming All Ways Free has the "authority" to present "Plan B" -- which might certainly seem "political" -- as a suggested "official" Rainbow action, we cannot understand why All Ways Free objects to the suggestion of Proposition One as a possible action strategy, or why AWF should decide which available options the Family should hear about, and which it shouldn't.

In service to understanding, D.C. Scribe .June 18, 1993

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