United States v. Rainbow

U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
311 West Monroe Street, Room 110 Jacksonville, Florida 32202

COPY: Original Filed with the court 3/14/96

RE: CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-183

The Parties:

PLAINTIFFS, United States of America, United States Department of Agriculture, The United States National Forest Service v. alleged

DEFENDANTS, The Rainbow Family a/k/a inter alia

Affiant:

Affiant is a user of the National Forests who may, or may not, be intended by the Plaintiff to be a defendant in this case.

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-183 IN LIEU OF ANSWER
AND SUBJECT TO THE FACTS:

1. The complaint does not allege that a "gathering" ever before occurred in the Osceola National Forest, nor does it allege any similar "gathering" is likely to happen there again.

Hence the Court lacks a "live controversy," and lacks subject matter jurisdiction to render what would amount to an advisory opinion on either the injunctive or declaratory relief sought as per, Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 US 625, 59 L.Ed. 2d 642, 99 S.Ct. 1379 (1979); Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc. v. United States, 281 U.S. App. D.C. 306, 889 F.2d 11339,1142-43 (D.C. Cir.1989).

2. To the best of my knowledge, the complaint "gathering" in the Oseola National Forest is over and the site has been fully restored. Therefore this matter is mute and should be dismissed.

3. The named, alleged, "Defendant Class" a/k/a Rainbow Family does not exist as any authoritarian hierarchy; therefore, no individual or group can represent the alleged defendant class.

4. Plaintiff's exhibit (see, Sec. 6-9, inclusive) is supposed to show membership in the Rainbow Family, or support the contention that the "Named Defendants" can "represent the interests of the class,n but the "Named Defendants" are not "named" in the exhibit.

5. The manner of establishing the alleged "Defendant Class", "on information and belief" was inadequate at best. Mere examination of drivers licenses and "casual" conversations under false pretext does not establish "Class."

6. The alleged "Named Defendants" (as per, 7.c) are not typical of any "Class." They are individual users of National Forests exercising "peaceable assembly" in the context of First Amendment rights.

7. Forest Service regulations (see, 60 Fed. Reg. 45258, 36 C.F.R. Sees. 251, 261, et. seq.) are untested against existing Constitutional and Common Law and must be contested equally, not upon a mere artifact of "class" or individual users of National Forests. as per, U.S. of A. v. Israel, U.S. of A. v. Rainbow Family.

8. The "Named" individual alleged "Defendants" are not typical of any "class" and cannot fairly or adequately protect the interests of any alleged "Defendant Class."

9. To the best of my knowledge the alleged "Named Defendants" have only similar circumstances in that a rainbow of spiritual beliefs is practiced and as such requires a strict "compelling interest" test upon government actions. as per, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993, [Employment Division, D.H.R. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).