Peace and Laws
The mailing list became unreadable during the month of September 2022.
There was no technical problem, but a few people seemed to have
nothing better to do than to write wall-of-text diatribes each
calling the other liar, traitor, evil wizard, or poopy-head.
It sure would be nice if we could learn to speak the partial
truth we know, without insulting someone else.
People dropped off the list. If you can't say anything nice
then nobody will be listening to anything at all.
As near as I can tell by reading between the lines of stupid
invective, this is what happened. Some lawyer-like brother
made a fake USFS form that said something more reasonable
than the standard one. I hope he knows what he is doing.
He can probably defend against a charge of copyright violation
by claiming it's satire, but what if he is charged with impersonating
an official printing press?
Someone at the gathering signed the bogo-form and gave it to
the Forest Service. The FS guys had a good laugh, no injuries
were reported and no arrests. The regional gathering went on undisturbed
except by rain.
Personally, I don't care what kind of scratch paper you use to
practice your handwriting, but some Rainbows went bat-shit
crazy over it.
Somebody took issue with that description of events and sent this:
S. did not create a fake form. He downloaded from USFS and KK
seems to have printed and signed it with S's language
inserted on the appropriate lines and then faxed it in
advance to the district office. As far as the district
ranger is concerned, it was a success. The trouble started
when neither KK, who left early, nor anyone else ever made it
to the main circle to explain what happened, and rumors
started.
It is said that there is a long-standing consensus not to sign anything.
I might have thought that the consensus had just been blocked in
the most direct way possible, but no. You can't block a consensus
made by unknown people forty years ago. No distinction can be made
between signing a Christmas Card or an order proclaiming yourself
Rex Arcus Pluvius (King of the Rainbow).
The Lawyer-guy calmed it all down by calling anyone who disagreed
blind, insane, and deluded liars, and demanding an apology from everyone,
not just those who disagreed, but also those who did what he
wanted, but not well enough.
Sigh.
— Webmaster
Please forward or copy and paste and send to the NERF List. Thx.
-------- Original message --------
From: Sunchild ☀️
Date: 9/17/22 9:33 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: NERFList
Subject: RE: Vermont gathering gets an Operating Plan
I've read this controversy being bantered about for the past few weeks.
It seems the family is divisive and divided. Seems
like there are those that want peaceful gatherings and there are
anarchist that just want to fight with the government. The
actions that Scottie wrote below, sounds reasonable.
I spent a few nights camping at the Vermont
gathering. It was hassel free. The Forest Service bushhogged the
meadows so people could gather and camp. There were no negative
enforcement actions and no police presence. As far as I know,
there were no negative results from signing an agreement plan
with the local Forest Service.
I am a longtime Rainbow goer. In the early days,
in the '70s, I remember peaceful, free gatherings-- much more
peace and love and freedom than any gatherings since. I remember
Forest Service and sheriffs respecting Rainbow wishes and
disarming their guns to enter the main meadows. The world has
changed a lot since then. The Feds got more strict and made
rules no one wants to follow. I've been to too many "illegal
gatherings" with too much police presence. Many friend have been
busted, fined, or thrown in jail.
When I go to gatherings, I just want peace. If it
means signing, or paying, or cooperating, without giving up our
rights and freedoms, than I, for one, would rather cooperate
than fight.
I am not involved in Rainbow politics, I
just feel like stating my opinion.
Sometimes we have to go along to get along.
Sunchild ☀️
Sent from my cell phone
-------- Original message --------
From: scottie
Date: 9/17/22 3:17 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: NERFList
Subject: Vermont gathering gets an Operating Plan
PCU //\ Free Assembly
Project /
_//\______________________________an Association of Volunteers__/
15 September 2022
~ REPORT & COMMENTARY ~
Vermont gathering gets an
Operating Plan
~ a tactical breakthrough on the 'Group Use' Regs
___________________________________________________
__BACKDROP____
The 'Permit' controversy confronting the Rainbow gatherings
has been stalemated for the last 12 years.
After the early era of prosecuting alleged leaders, then the mass
citation tactics and straw-dog signer ploys since 2001, the Forest
Service backed off in 2010, seemingly called a truce and issued a
good Operating Plan for the "Peaceable Assembly" in Pennsylvania.
Arguably they were induced to do so by gatherers' successful court
fights after 2005 - especially the WVa'05 appeals that overturned
nine convictions, and the lawsuit against fraudulent signers in
NM'09, nullifying that permit and shredding the whole legal scheme.
They saw new constitutional arguments that they could not sidestep
or surmount, and our ability to fight back... so they needed to
avoid the next confrontation on these issues, and any decisive court
case that they would lose.
Of course this could not last: With Incident Command pushing
enforcement policies in DC, OpPlans showed up with bad Rainbow
'Group' language & liabilities, lousy terms, separate fire
permit requirements, and new signature demands. Then they were
abandoned entirely, substituting "Design Criteria" directives that
were unilateral, non-negotiable, and do not authorize any special
use. As a result, every gathering since 2017 has been declared
illegal, piling up political black marks. The 50th Anniversary
Rainbow Gathering in Colorado got hostile treatment, and the Forest
Supervisor emphatically deemed it to be "unauthorized".
Meanwhile since the Forest Service has not pushed or prosecuted on
permits for awhile, gatherers have been lulled into complacency:
Most believe things are going along okay and nothing needs to be
done - but the Regs still stand as law and can land on them hard
anytime.
NextGens know little of this historic fight, and are unready
with much at stake.
__INITIATIVE____
Rainbow'22 in Colorado was far away, so in the Northeast
there were strong sentiments & skills for a regional gathering
in August. In light of the escalating FS Permit game, this seemed
an opportunity to get a proper Operating Plan and set up a strong
legal position to change the game. So an Idea was brought to the
vulnerable folks up-front, preparing to go to the woods in Vermont:
•• Don't wait for Feds to show up... at the outset let 2
attendees propose 'Individual Volunteer' agreements to
the District Ranger, giving notice of this assembly,
requesting an OpPlan and offering to cooperate in support:::
No phony Permit signed, no fake Group implicated... preserving
personal standing of participants, seizing the high ground for a
legal gathering in the only way they can do so lawfully.
This idea has been brewing for a long time, observant of all the
Regs cases and thought-out with care to be legally safe for
volunteers, encumbering no others - and this seemed a good moment
for a Win/Win scenario: Either the FS accepts the Volunteer
proposals and Grants OpPlan authorization, setting a valuable agency
precedent - Or they Deny within 48 hours, and an unbeatable case
against the Regs can go straight to federal court in a good
constitutional Circuit. There were great odds on winning the easy
way.
Discussions on all this moved by email and phone over most of a
week, then the idea was brought to a planned crew conference call
in-prep for the gathering, laying out the logic and offering tech
support if they liked it. The only stated concern was that it might
disrupt their good relations with local Foresters... In fact this
approach in good-faith was more likely to make them better, taking
the heat off of everybody.
There was no other debate, no consensus suggested... the option
was simply presented and left in their hands, to consider as they
chose in their process.
In a couple days a stalwart sister from that crew got back and
agreed to proceed, and the work got done to prepare the paper
trail. Purportedly another guy was going to step up as the 2nd
volunteer, but he backed down - so only her package was submitted by
fax to the Rochester District Ranger on August 18:
~
VolAgrmt_jBurt-sgFS_r.pdf
The proposed Agreement was counter-signed and approved by the
District Ranger the same day. Then after the weekend the FS
delivered an Operating Plan at Texas Falls as agreed:
~
RainbowOperatingPlan_Texas Meadows08222022.pdf
So, the plan WORKED, with a few glitches... we won:
A rad direct action for a radically legal gathering.
Then to ponder the path this opens, and the potentials of really
doing this right...
__IMPLICATIONS____
[] Any 'special use' of National Forest land has to be proposed
by 'somebody' for the FS to approve it - basic public land law,
normal procedure for everybody, not the problem. But the standard
Group Use application does only one thing - get a Permit for a
'Group'... if none exists, signers are false agents of a fictional
entity, attendees are bound without consent or protection, and the
Permit is fraudulent. 18 USC 1001. If this is the only way to
apply, citizens in assembly are excluded from authorization. That's
the real problem.
If you can't get the squares to think outside the box, get a
better box:
The Volunteer program for all federal land agencies is designed
for individual citizens to help in particular ways as agreed... SO
stand in that frame: Adapt the standard Volunteer form to serve as
a special use application with the needed points of notice, and
demand an Operating Plan per 36 CFR 261.1a.
That's all our Sister did in Vermont - a personal agreement
just to help an OpPlan work for the gathering at Texas Falls,
speaking for no one else but enabling safe cooperation with
Foresters on the land.
[] The signed Volunteer deal is made public to be understood
and accountable:
it is an "individual" Agreement by definition at the top [√], with a
personal commitment limited to the stated scope and protected from
liability. The key language is in Par.24 - the 'Description of
Service', scribed for the agency as submitted: The intent is set
forth concisely, and it provides for a collaborative OpPlan to
authorize this assembly in precise terms. Par.33 is amended in the
cover letter to protect the volunteer's ability to document the
work The rest is boilerplate for all kinds of volunteers, no
controversy.
When the District Ranger signed in acceptance, that Agreement
took full legal effect. For the first time in 40 years the Forest
Service acknowledged a 'Rainbow' proposal on clear personal
standing, and agreed to an OpPlan authorizing a gathering properly
as an assembly of individuals. This is a breakthrough on the Regs,
demonstrating a workable model for a sustainable constitutional
solution.
[] The Vermont VolApp strategy evolved from decades of
gatherers' legal struggles and aspirations for good Operating Plans
& fair treatment, in lieu of bad Permits & harassment. It
is also aligned with the amended rules proposed in the CFR Petition submitted to USDA (June
2018, Sept. 2021) - which would mandate OpPlans for "public
assembly" as a distinct special use, and allow attendees to
cooperate safely as volunteers. This model has been examined and
supported by seasoned gatherers & attorneys in broad discussions
to date.
Moreover this approach is wholly mindful of Rainbow creed and
gathering traditions: Everybody is a "volunteer" for Everything to
be done... working with good foresters on site care & cleanup is
one of them, a proud expression of citizen stewardship on
public land. The only hazard is 'Drainbow' politics - the blind
opinions & factional flak that always show up, and are doing so
again. This stuff needs to be talked about and understood... to
make any real momentum, people must be informed on what's real.
[]
Ultimately the Regs still have to be changed... as long as
they are in-place, they can and will be misused against the
gatherings. The Fed bureaucrats in DC have ineptly dumped our
Petition twice, but it still lays out optimal provisions for the
future, meeting fair regulatory purposes and constitutional tests in
the public interest. That campaign has to be renewed and pursued
creatively, knowing its strengths:
The VolApp move in Vermont took a strong ethical and legal
position: It showed good faith with true public interests in the
woods, and local Foresters affirmed that this works OK for them. it
also put them on a spot... if this proposal were Denied, it would
set up a solid court challenge against the Regs "as-applied" in
restricting speech - the ideal favored position in 1st Amendment
law, still available on this path.
All in all, a most instructive initiative on all sides...
will see what happens next time if folks do it right.
____________________________________
Respectfully,
__scottie, Rapporteur____
St. Louis, Missouri
