PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project

Dear Ms. Connally and Chief Moore,

We are writing you because we had the distinct pleasure of working with each of you in the field during two of the annual Rainbow Gatherings. 

Ms. Connelly, we worked with you during the New Mexico Rainbow in 2009; and with you, Chief Moore, during the Missouri Gathering in 1996. In that event we recall communicating together concerning the ‘roadblock’ conditions which led to the revision of the Forest Service Law Enforcement Handbook’s  standards for ‘safety checkpoints.’                                [b]

We also participated recently in a Zoom conference concerning the CFR Group Use Regulations. Deputy Chris French asked repeated questions about whether ‘we’ were a definable group, based on various aspects of how the people communicate and work together to assemble.

We know that we share differences about whether ‘we’ are ‘group’ or not.                                                              [c]

But the real question is: How can the Forest Service find a way to legalize a public assembly by granting authorization to an assembly of individuals who meet or exceed criteria for resource protection, public health, and safety, as specified in an Operating Plan or similar document?

There ought to be a way to do this.

In the case of the 50-year ongoing history of the Rainbow Gatherings, there has never been an instance of any serious resource damages. There is long history of excellent clean-ups and rehab plans that have been followed meticulously. There is long history of participants working closely with USFS specialists for water protection, archaeological site protection, flora and fauna protection, traffic safety, waste disposal, and rehabilitation of high-use areas.

We personally are huge fans of the Forest Service and the bounteous resource it protects and preserves for public use, enjoyment, education and prosperity. It is a Cathedral of Nature that you are charged with maintaining, and that’s no small task.

In the 50^th Anniversary Gathering – where perhaps there may be more media attention than ever – we would like to be able to point to the outstanding relation between the Rainbows and the Forest Service as an example of how people and agencies have found a way to work together.

Please consider the question we pose above: How can the Forest Service find a way to legalize a public assembly that meets resource protection criteria – and yet as a matter of principle does not want to formalize itself into an organization.    [d]

That’s one of the expressive freedoms that the Rainbow Gatherings are about: that people can make a community without electing, selecting or appointing officers. We know that’s a hard idea for people stationed in government to work with, but there must be a way to avoid illegalizing all the people who participate in these events year after year and all the problems, expenses, tickets, even arrests and prosecutions the ‘illegalizing’ effect brings.                                                                        [e]

Thanks for your time reading and considering this. If we can be of any further usefulness in discussing this, please let us know.

Very best regards,

Garrick Beck

Joanee Freedom                                                                                                                                                  [f]

——– EDITORIAL NOTES ——–

[a]      This was just the text of the letter as provided later to a private recipient list. It went to USFS Chief Randy Moore and Chief of Staff Erin Connelly, but no dated header is shown – so it’s unknown exactly where and when it was sent.

[b]      Erin Connelly was in the USFS Southwest Region office in 2009. Garrick Beck made overtures seeking a ‘Group Use’ authorization for the New Mexico gathering; instead they got a Permit signed by 2 women referred by a well-connected crony of the former Chief. The signers were subsequently sued by an attendee in State court – which found that they had no authority to act on behalf of gatherers and nullified that Permit.    ORDER – Sedlacko v. Law & Dearborn (7/14/2011)

      The intensive police roadblocks on the Missouri ’96 gathering resulted in a civil rights lawsuit in Federal court, filed in Kansas City later in July. Park v. Forest Service. These continued practices led to another lawsuit in Florida, winning a preliminary injunction in February 1998. Addison v. Forest Service. The “National Checkpoint Policy” was enacted unilaterally by FS Law Enforcement in September 1998 — creating new powers for these police tactics disputed in two pending cases. That was the actual sequence of events… it was not an outcome to be celebrated.

[c]      The conference was set to address the USDA’s handling of the Regs Petition… the “repeated questions” from French were a diversion, and showed his ignorance of what it’s about:  The main purpose is to enable special use authorization for Public Assembly where there is no ‘Group’, by definition — upon the stated legal proof that the putative ‘Rainbow Family’ is NOT one.  To concede plausible “differences” on this point backpedals on the facts, and a core premise of the CFR proposal.

[d]      Extending this concern — the need to “legalize a public assembly” is not based on any matter of participant beliefs or “principle”, or whether it “wants to [be] an organization”: It is because a true assembly CANNOT do so, nor be construed as such based on people camping in proximity & ad hoc cooperation — as a matter of law. The constitutional mandate arises from the FACT of individual standing in assembly, beyond any wish, conjecture or creed… it does not serve to equivocate on this.

[e]      The “real question” is duly posed and reiterated — how to “find a way” to authorize public assembly with an Operating Plan. But this eludes the answer already on the table — the ‘Volunteer’ approach codified and explained in the CFR Petition — consistent with adminstrative law, gathering culture & personal rights.

[f]      In Sum — a polite letter following upon the Regs Petition, but making no reference to it and stating no support.
The net effect was to upstage and marginalize the Petition – distracting from the focused policy demand in-progress with a fuzzy plea for mercy, distancing the authors, signaling division & weakness among advocates at a critical point in the process.