Letter from Rainbow Family Legaliaison Volunteers 1/26/93
January 26, 1993
TO: White House
This rulemaking proposal would establish administrative
restrictions on the right of the people to peaceably assemble on
the public lands for the purposes of expression and/or religious
For the past 20 years the Rainbow Family, among others, has
gathered on public lands. Last year there were over 200 such
gatherings, large and small. The largest being in Colorado during
July with many thousands of people attending. Attached is
additional information regarding the history of the Rainbow
Gatherings and the Forest Service. Appendix A
Despite agreements to act with "an attitude of positive
cooperation" (Appendix B), the National Forest Service has
consistently assumed a confrontational posture with respect to
these gatherings. This adversarial attitude has resulted in:
ATT; Carol Rasco, Domestic Policy Advisor
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
FROM: Rainbow Family Legaliaison Volunteers
P.O. Box 5604, Takoma Park, Maryland 20913
SUBJECT: Request for clarification of the Agriculture Department's position with respect to U.S. Forest Service rulemaking proposal, currently pending Office of Management and Budget approval, which would restrict the right of peaceable assembly on public lands.
The Rainbow Family Legaliaison requests a response to the following
1. Court cases, settled, after considerable time and expense,
in favor of the right of the people to assemble. E.g., United
States v. Israel, No. Cr-86-027- TUC-RMB (May 10, 1986; 53
Fed. Reg. 16548 (May 10, 1988), amending 36 C.F.R. Sec. 251.50
(1987); United States v. The Rainbow Family, 694 F. Supp. 294,
(June 1, 1989, J. Justice, USED Tex. CA No. L-88-68); 55 Fed.
Reg. 8498 (March 8, 1990).
2. Injury, harassment, and arrest of many people.
3. Exorbitant amounts of public funds spent to support a
large, but unnecessary police presence (e.g., Appendix C), and
4. A climate of administrative secrecy so hostile that,
notwithstanding previous assurances of "positive cooperation"
(Appendix B), the agency not only refuses to divulge the
substance of its present proposal, but even its official
regulatory designation (from previous experience --see, draft
of the rulemaking proposed submitted by NFS to OMB on February
22, 1990 -- we suspect it will be designated as an amendment
to 36 CFR 2.51).
Thank you for your assistance.
* Have the proposed regulations currently under consideration
for Office of Management and Budget (Don Arbuckle j395-7340)
approval been (as reported by the Washington Post, January 24,
1992, page A-18) rescinded by order of Leon Panetta?
* If that proposal has not been rescinded is the current
administration willing to hold a public hearing in an attempt
to resolve this ongoing conflict in a spirit of peace through
FS Regs Page | PCU Administrative Record
Rainbow in Court | Government Views | Public Views
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue