United States v. Rainbow

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.

1. In its Order of May 10, 1996, this Court denied, in part Affiant's "Prayer For Relief" (Dec. R76) filed April 29, 1996 by quoting lines 14.5 through 16 - a general request for an extension of response time.

2. This Court left standing Affiant's intention to intervene as a defendant, pro se as stated in lines 8 through 13.5 (Dec. #76) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (a)(2). While Affiant expresses gratitude to this Court for applying the "spirit" of Raines v. Kerner 404 US 519 (1972) Affiant wishes to comply with the established local rules (Rule 301) to the best of his abilities. To this point the following information is supplied.

3. ( Reasons)

a. Affiant has applied as intervenor during the allowable response (to Plaintiff's complaint) period granted to other Defendants. Diaz v. Southern Drilling Corporation 472 F. 2d 1118, 1125-26 (5th Cir.).

b. Affiant has previously stated he is a user of the lands administered by the Plaintiffs (Dec. #76, lines 12-13.5) Childs v. Thornburgh 865 F. 2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1989).

c. Final disposition of Plaintiff's complaint will impede Affiant's ability to peaceably gather and violate Affiant's freedom of religious expression. U.S. Constitution Amendment 1.

d. The Plaintiffs have registered their complaint as a Class Action against an alleged group (Rainbow Family, et al.). Since it has not be established that such a group exists in any form of cohesive organization capable of defending anything, Affiant moves to protect his own interests of peaceable assembly and religious expression. Whether these interests are similar to the alleged Rainbow Family et al. or other "named" individuals is unknown. To date, it has not been shown that anyone has filed a response to the complaint. This fact alone establishes inadequate representation of Affiant's interests.

Trobovich v. United Mine Workers of America 404 US 528, 538 n. 10.

4. Since this Court by the Order of May 10, 1996 has left standing Affiant's request to intervene as a Defendant pro se, it seems only reasonable that some prescribed time period be allowed to answer the Plaintiff's complaint.

However, since the Affiant has a "Motion For Dismissal In Lieu Of Answer" (Dec. #77) currently before the Court, Affiant requests, at this time, that said "prescribed time period" begin after an Order is issued regarding said motion (Doc. #77).

AFFIANT: Glen Baxter DATE:5/23 / 96
9938 Keswick St.
Burbank, CA 91504
Glen Baxter

AFFIANT, Pro Bone Glenn Baxter
9938 Keswick Street
Burbank, CA 91504
(818) 768-8886

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
311 West Monroe St., Rm. 110
Jacksonville, FL 32202

PLAINTIFF: USA, per
LESLIE LAGOMARCINO
GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE
U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
14TH & INDEPENDENCE AVE. S.W.
ROOM 2047
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250-1400

DEFENDANT:
RAINBOW FAMILY, ET. AL
UNKNOWN ADDRESS

1. I served copies of the following papers in the manner shown: