Rainbow/Legaliaison Update 6/17/93
As individuals, and with all due respect to Tribal process,
Legaliaison/Peace Park humbly suggests that:
SERIOUS INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN TRANSCENDING THE MINDLESS SPLIT
OF THE 1993 RAINBOW FAMILY GATHERINGS OF THE TRIBES, AND WHO SEEK
UNITY IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD
CRIMINALIZE FUTURE GATHERINGS, ATTEND THE FREEDOM OF BELIEF,
EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY COUNCIL IN D.C. THIS COUNCIL WILL BEGIN
IN THE 2nd WEEK IN JULY AND CONTINUE UNTIL THERE IS NO FURTHER
INTEREST IN DISCUSSING AND ACTING TO OPPOSE MINDLESS OPPRESSION.
END OF THE RAINBOW, OR A NEW BEGINNING?
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
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