PCU_/Free Assembly Project:
Official Correspondence to Mark Rey, USDA Under Secretary… June 2002- Nov. 2008
Mark Rey was a timber industry lobbyist who was appointed USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources & Environment under the Bush administration. This is a sub-Cabinet level position, the top civilian official over the U.S. Forest Service – which means that the USFS Chief and all ‘line officers’ report to him on policy matters.
Due to certain personal & political connections in Washington, Rey took a direct interest in policies toward the Rainbow Gatherings — actually attended several events, met with concerned attendees, and participated in a series of phone conferences up through December 2008, just before his departure with a new administration coming in.
PCU_/Free Assembly Project observed Rey’s policy actions closely throughout his tenure, and responded accordingly in a series of 11 major policy critiques, conveyed to his Office: The first debunked his directives to the Incident Commander during the 2002 Gathering in Michigan, the last decried the events & aftermath of the 2008 Gathering in Wyoming – with timely communiques on incidents and issues through the years in-between.
There were other letters and calls with the Under Secretary’s Office, in the realm of routine business & discourse. However the following documents were formal ‘presentments’ to Rey and USFS officials, stating PCU_/FAP positions and contesting abuses of applied policy. In addition, a new “Overture” went out in June 2014 to succeeding Under Secretary Robert Bonnie – an effort to apprise him of past communications and resume meaningful dialogue.
Together they make a substantial administrative record on these issues, and assert the public interest in preserving civil liberties and good stewardship in the National Forests:
____________________________
Rey1: Group Use Policy Critique, jn02-fe03
___/ In late-June 2002, while mass enforcement tactics were underway at the Rainbow Gathering in Michigan, Mark Rey sent a letter to Incident Commander Malcolm Jowers – ostensibly ‘clarifying’ on questions related to the noncommercial group use permit. In the ensuing months we assessed this directive, and in February 2003 presented an analysis showing “the Department’s position” to be an untenable policy trap:
“In sum, your “clarifications” are legal oxymorons… only further muddling the amorphous scope and arbitrary thresholds of the ‘Group Use’ regulation, and its impact in abrogating the right of assembly as a personal guarantee under the First Amendment.”
* USDA ‘Group Use’ Position to IC-28jn02
* Rey1_Group Use Policy Crit-25fe03
Rey2: Utah Permit & Jurisdiction, jn03
___/ To avert harassment at the 2003 Gathering in Utah, a permit signer came forward, but was subjected to liability as a ‘group agent’ and redundant strictures under state law. In early June this response challenged the agency’s premises on the signer’s capacities, and how local authorities were ‘piggybacked’ under the Incident Command scheme to burden expression – asserting the singular jurisdiction of the Forest Service in applying proper standards for National Forest primitive areas.
It went out to Mr. Rey, the USFS Regional “Special Uses” administrator, and was forwarded to others: About 10 days later, the Utah Dept. of Health declined enforcement action against the Gathering, stating that these matters were outside their jurisdiction.
* Rey2_UT Permit & Health Jurisdiction-9jn03
Rey3: USFS Delegation of Authority, ja04
___/ In January 2004 concerned gatherers held a public meeting with Rey and other USFS officials in San Francisco, in efforts to air grievances over applied ‘Group Use’ policies & enforcement tactics, and avert continuing confrontations. PCU_/FAP was not personally represented there, but submitted a written position statement to the record:
The “Delegation of Authority” to Incident Command is improper as a device of ‘Group Use’ policy – flawed in its concealed factual grounds, biased as applied selectively to ‘Rainbow’ gatherings, triggering targeted enforcement, and violating Forest Service mandates.
* Rey3_on Delegation of Authority-8ja04
Rey4: Request for ‘Group Use’ Action, my04
___/ After the public meeting in San Francisco, negotiations with Rey’s office stalled – and he had never answered prior correspondence from PCU_/FAP. In light of the upcoming Gathering in California, and looming conflicts again, this was a formal “Request for Responsive Action on USFS ‘Group Use’ Policies”, to address the issues and fulfill promises of fair accommodation.
It urged immediate remedies within his applied policy discretion, as a first step to a rule revision process to follow, and offered substantial recommendations to that end. “As a key premise, the Permit is understood to be one of various means of regulation available to NFS officials, not an end in itself.”
* Rey4_RequestAction-GUPolicy-3my04
Rey5: The Volunteer Solution, jn04
___/ A month later, with no action from Rey’s office and imminent crisis in California, this initiative put a new answer on the table, using existing FS forms: “Allowing a few individuals to apply personally as Volunteers, giving notice of intended special use by this means, and serving as liaisons & specialists on matters of gathering welfare & performance.” Appended was a ‘SYNOPSIS…’ stating the legal & operational grounds, and showing how this approach would meet agency needs and enable special use authorization without engaging a fictional ‘Group’ – the basis of any long-term solution.
Mark Rey liked the idea, but was not moved by any sense of urgency, since he already had a permit signer in his pocket, right there in Washington DC, 3000 miles away.
* Rey5_Volunteer Solution-4jn04
Rey6: Cal’04 Applied Policy Critique, au04
___/ The signed permit for the California Gathering was NOT a solution: The fraudulent permit under threat of revocation, continuing law enforcement abuses, arbitrary environmental constraints, and the ‘archeology trap’ are attacked here systematically, in 12 points. The elements of applied policy persisted in targeting the Gathering, asserting vicarious liabilities, fomenting intrusions and confrontations, and misusing permit terms to its discredit.
This hard-edged analysis was addressed to the Forest Supervisor, the nominally responsible line officer, with cc’s to the District Ranger, Regional Forester, and Mark Rey – who toured the Gathering in early July with John Twiss, the emergent heavy hand behind the throne.
* Rey6_Rainbow’04 Policy Crit-5au04
Rey7: WVa’05 Civil Rights Violations, jn05
___/ When the 2005 Rainbow Gathering landed in West Virginia, confrontations started right away: LEO’s blocked the road in, targeted small camps in compliance miles apart, and issued citations en masse. Upon denial of a permit application and closure of the chosen site on false environmental pretexts, the event was forced to move 80 miles south to a remote boggy site at Cranberry Glades, and a permit was signed under duress by a hapless parking volunteer.
This ‘Notice of Civil Rights Violations’ went to the Forest Supervisor (attn: Regional Forester, USFS Chief, & Rey) while abuses were in-progress, calling for immediate relief to no avail: LEO incursions and provocations continued, and mass prosecutions of Rainbows went forward at Magistrate trials adjacent to the Gathering, with due process rights curtailed.
[As events later unfolded, most defendants took plea deals and paid fines, just to get away… those who defended were denied counsel and got railroaded. Among many convictions, 9 cases were appealed on strong 1st Amendment grounds, and were overturned by the District Court — but allegedly on technical flaws in the trial record, evading the real issues.]
* Rey7_Notice of Rights Violations-20jn05
Rey8: Col’06 Petition, jy06
___/ At the 2006 Gathering in Colorado, LEO tactics commenced with roadblocks & site blockade, and devolved from there: A fearful permit application was denied on the pretext of fire hazard, then the event deemed “illegal” was subjected to hundreds of ‘Group Use’ citations, intimidating police actions, and more ‘Rainbow Tribunals’ near the site… a 6th Amendment suit forced the Magistrate & Incident Commander to open the “court” to lawyers and the public.
This was a formal “Emergency Petition” per 5 USC §553(e)[1], presented with personal “Reflections” on prior discourses with Rey, and how Forest Service policy actions kept disregarding what he was told, and departing from what he said.
* Rey8_Col’06 Petition & Reflections-2jy06
Rey9: OpPlans & ‘Quiet Caveats’, au06
___/ In the wake of Colorado events, citizens resumed entreaties to Rey & key FS officials, seeking accommodation under the permit rules. Influential gatherers called for use of the ‘Operating Plan’ as an alternative means of compliance, with a ‘process’ of cooperation and Consensus of a ‘Rainbow Circle/council’ to make it “LEGAL”. In response, PCU_/FAP disputed these premises, stating the ‘Caveats’ – the trap of de facto agency in personal actions vested with official sanction, and the fallacy of an ad hoc forum making official decisions:
“In fact no such “Circle/council” as comprised at a public gathering can do anything ‘LEGAL’.” Operating Plans still name the “Rainbow Family” as a ‘Group’ party… such proposals only feed and entrench this fiction, far worse than the permit signature they seek to avoid. Agreements with the Feds on these grounds are “flawed, divisive, and doomed to fail.”
Rey10: Intent Letter to Lawyer, my08
___/ In negotiations with Rey through Spring ’07, he agreed to authorize the next Gathering with an Operating Plan, without a signed permit… but when it came to Arkansas, the ‘Incident Team’ declared it “illegal”, and LEO hassles intensified anyway. As talks resumed in Fall ’07, gatherers aired these new grievances; Rey was mildly contrite, extended the “accommodation” to 2008, but on vague terms of advance notification exceeding what the regulations require.
By Spring ’08, gatherers called for a clear policy statement and submitted views. On May 1 Rey issued a letter of policy intent to “members of the Rainbow Family”, principally via Fax to a self-annointed attorney on their behalf – which presumptively pegs the ‘Rainbow Family’ as a legally represented ‘Group’, for regulatory purposes. Its content aside, PCU_/FAP questioned this ex parte means of serving notice on gatherers at-large, and got no answers.
* Rey10_re:Letter of Intent-8my08
Rey11: Wyo-ACLU & Twiss, no08
___/ The 2008 Rainbow Gathering in Wyoming faced policy traps and escalated LEO tactics: Feds contrived a conflict with a Boy Scout project set near the site weeks later, demanded that gatherers move, and slammed them in the press. LEO’s ran roadblocks & invasive actions – with 2 dubious fires, takedowns, ‘tasings’, & provocations culminating in police violence on 7/3, firing sublethal weapons in Kid Village – the ‘Incident Creation’ Team at work.
Top LEO John Twiss called it a hippie riot, but ACLU-Wyoming investigated and found otherwise: On 10/3 they issued a scathing public report on official conduct at the Gathering.
Upon this, PCU_/FAP was about to demand his ouster, when news came he was ‘retiring’… so a different letter went to Rey on 11/7: “On Wyoming, the ACLU Report, and the Timely Exit of John Twiss” – noting how his USFS career rise in DC brought on more devious & draconian policies, and “unprecedented extensions of police power into… administrative affairs.” It called for reversal of these trends, restoration of civilian authority & civil rights, and a last conference with Rey – to close his tenure with good recommendations to the next Administration.
* Rey11_WY~acluRprt~ExitTwiss-7no08
- PUBLIC INFO RELEASE___ 24 June 2014:
- A new letter goes out to the current USDA Under Secretary, Robert Bonnie, outlining the legacy of public discourse with that Office…
• “The National Forest Gatherings – Renewing the Policy Dialogue”
…hopefully to restore broader new discussions on issues of stewardship and rights.
Document Actions
—