Rainbow/Legaliaison Update 6/17/93

As individuals, and with all due respect to Tribal process, Legaliaison/Peace Park humbly suggests that:



Any actions or opinions of Legaliaison\DC Crew used to be subject to approval of Rainbow Family Council July 1-7, on the land. After this year's Rainbow Family Council, however, "the Council" may be unable even to approve opinions on where "the land" was.

Once each year, 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. This year the Family has been unable to even agree on a state in which the unity and prayer for peace will happen. Thus, it appears, this July there will be two separate gatherings for unity and peace, divided by opinion, ego, and about three hundred miles. This diversity is possible because, 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 the greatest threat to its continued existence that it has ever encountered. The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard (May 8, 1993), and other public media, have 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 traditional Rainbow Gathering into a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment.

Since 1988, at the request of Rainbow Family members, Legaliaison\DC has been gathering information about the government's progress in promulgating this regulation. Legaliaison has disseminated that information, along with opinions and suggestions relating to the regulation, to various individuals who have expressed concern about the issue.

The Rainbow Family is often described as a group of free- thinkers. So, as one might expect, the Family contains many brilliant legal minds. Owing to this brilliant diversity, in addition to a physical split within the Family there also appears to be a spiritual/intellectual/political/legal/whatever split.

Legaliaison\DC feels as if it is caught between a police state scheme designed to crush individuality and a torrent of Family power trips. On the one hand many many individuals 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) couldn't care less where the site is, and (3) is deeply disturbed by the fact that, as the Family faces this monumental threat to its very existence, there seems to be enough disunity within the Family to insure its demise; our position is: if you can't get it together, vote with your feet.

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 wrongly "mix(ed) Rainbow Legaliaison material & Peace Park, Proposition One stuff."

For example, one practical question about AWF's prioritazation is, why are letters to the Forest Service prioritized as #5? This is a point which should be of special interest to lawyer types who might want to argue against this regulation in court. As any mediocre law student knows, "the court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the agency ... and must consider ... the record before the agency at the time of the decision." Thomas v. Lujan, 791 F. Supp. 322. Without an administrative hearing, the only material which the Family will get into the "record before the agency," which is all the court "must consider," are letters written to the agency. Even a mediocre law student wouldn't go to court without building a good record.

The simple FACT (as distinct from an opinion) is that the yproposed 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. If this regulation is enacted those who fail to apprehend this fact will understand that "Rainbow Family cause" was really not so different from "Peace Park cause." We stress this FACT now so that if, God forbid, our dire predictions come to pass, we may then share a better understanding with those wonderfully optimistic brothers and sisters who presently trust the courts to uphold the right of peaceable assembly.

All Ways Free mistakenly 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, Forest Service bureaucrats have been working on this regulation for years, but anyone who imagines the Rainbow Family has secrets that the Forest Service doesn't know just hasn't been reading all the Forest Service reports. An equally valid opinion about "the problem which faces us now" is that the government (administrative, judicial and legislative branches) has progressively enacted, enforced, and condoned -- while the public has acquiesced to -- ever more restrictive regulations, and that this regulation is merely the "logical" extension of ever more restrictive POLICIES. It was conceived by the Reagan/Bush crew, has been blessed by the Clinton crew, and is aimed at a bunch of hippies. Anyone who thinks the problem just comes from some "bureaucrats," and expects the system's courts to rule in favor of the hippies, is just blissin' out.

To the best of our knowledge, Legaliaison/DC was first to note the government's POLICY of "pro-active" enforcement/management. All Ways Free picked right up on it (page 16). Legaliaison proposes that this POLICY of "pro-active" enforcement is nothing more than the domestic application of the international POLICY known as "Peace through Strength," and THAT is a big a problem.

Problems of this magnitude require structural solutions. In addition to following "Plan B, we suggest, it is important to begin thinking about constructing more loving POLICIES. Armed struggle has been suggested. Legaliaison contends armed struggle is the problem, and suggests Peace through Reason instead.

When enough people agree, anything can become law. Law may be either reasonable or ruthless, creative or destructive. Whether we consider ourselves "political" or not, this regulation may help us begin to recognize how harshly we can be affected by law.

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. As law, Proposition One would initiate significant structural 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 Peace through Understanding.

In our opinion, "Proposition One stuff" is no more political, no less related, but, in the long run, more practical to this "Rainbow cause" than "Plan B" -- which Legaliaison has been extremely active in promoting for months anyway.

Legaliaison\DC certainly never meant to suggest any kind of a merger between the Proposition One entity and the Rainbow non- entity. (Believe it or not, some members of the boards of directors and advisors of the Proposition One Committee don't take the Rainbow Family very seriously, and might not consider a public endorsement by the Rainbow Family to be politically desirable.) Legaliaison merely suggested, call it "Plan C," that individuals pooling effort into Proposition One could positively address the problem of systemic "pro-active enforcement."

Assuming All Ways Free has the "authority" to present "Plan B" -- -- which certainly could seem to be "political" -- as a suggested "official" Rainbow action, Legaliaison cannot understand how All Ways Free can object to the suggestion of Proposition One as a possible action strategy. It might even be asked whether All Ways Free has done a considerable disservice both to the Family and objectivity by failing to publish a complete presentation of the options available to combat the government's scheme.

Legaliaison has called for a "Freedom of Belief, Expression and Assembly Council," beginning the 2nd week in July in D.C. An All Ways Free person has opposed a D.C. Council because they "can't" make it to D.C. in July. To folks with that problem we say, fine, stay home and write letters to your federal representative, but please, for the First Amendment's sake, don't throw obstacles in the way of those who might want to do more.

Committed to truth, equality, justice and freedom, and having minimized their own participation in the Babylonian system, many individuals performing service for Legaliaisom in D.C. sometimes tend to lack a certain degree of tolerance toward individuals who profess commitment to the same ideals, but, perhaps, owing to some level of commitment to the Babylonian system, just "can't" take the time and energy to serve the mutual ideals. Pardon us.

In service to understanding, D.C. Scribe.

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