X-Authentication-Warning: garcia.efn.org: c_newbre owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:44:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Carla Newbre
To: Rob Savoye
cc: gathering@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: FS Regs: Time to write.
Sender: owner-gathering@cygnus.com
Reply-To: gathering@cygnus.com
On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Rob Savoye wrote:
> From: Carla Newbre
> Subject: Re: FS Regs: Time to write.
>
> > to know that only the last few pages are the actual regulations. The rest
> > of all that verbiage is what the F.S. calls the "preamble." It is
> > notworthy not only because it is six times longer than the actual regs,
> > but also because it answers the objections to the regs that just plain
> > folks like us wrote in on during the public comment period. That's what
>
> I found the preamble pretty interesting though. The FS's responses really
> showed their mindset, plus they wonderfully contradict themselves in a few
> places. Like in one place they claim the permit signer isn't responsible
> for anything, then later they say the permit signer *is* responsible for
> everyone's safety. Ya can't have it both ways...
>
> > Forest Service claims to be so is either completely unsubstantiated or
> > downright false.
>
> Yep. Many of the "incidents" were fabricated by the FS for "proof". A classic
> example is when they talk about the 1987 NC gathering. There they arrested
> (thank you LEOs Billy Ball, Clarence Smith, Malcom Jowers) the cleanup crew
> after they had collected trash for recycling. Then the FS took pictures of the
> piles of trash, and claimed we left it all! Course once folks got out of
> jail they finished cleaning up.
>
> > fear, or whatever, the public has become content to allow government
> > interference into all their activities. Very few people ever question a
> > bureaucracy's right to regulate them in one way or another. In this case,
>
> That's the real issue. It's one of control. Most folks don't even care
> that our goverment is busy redefining the constitution and the bill of
> rights till we have none left. I've always wondered if the real reason the
> FS wants to stop Rainbow Gatherings is cause they can't stand seeing so
> many folks in one place that obviously don't follow the goverment line, hook
> and sinker...
>
> - rob -
>
The preamble also demonstrates one fact that some of us have been warning
against for years: anything we do or say will be used against us
eventually. The preamble essentially takes the comment letters which the
Forest Service requested be sent to them by the public (that means us) and
turned them around to their own purpose. Not only did they not respond in
any meaningful was to some substantive letters (I was fortunate enough to
read copies of many of them), they took phrases out of context to make it
seem as if the public agreed with the Forest Service.
So, people, be very careful about playing their game - even if your part
in the game is opposing them. They absolutely _will_ do whatever they can
to make us unwitting participants in our own demise. This is why I do not
believe there is any point in negotiating with the Forest Service in any
fashion. They are not reasonable in their position on permit regulations.
They want nothing less than absolute control. Any attempt on our part to
short-circuit the regs through dealing with them is bound to fail.
I personally believe there are also some very powerful people in Congress
backing their moves, so at this point I also don't believe we will garner
any support in that quarter unless literally thousands of people write
their congresspeople and get their attention. Likewise for writing the
Pres and Vice-Pres.
That doesn't mean, however, that people shouldn't do
so. Like I say, if they get lots of letters, it might help get their
attention. Being the closet idealist that I am (that means I'm pretty
cynical in some respects) I do believe it's important for each person to
do their very utmost for what they believe in. If nothing else, they will
get a tremendous education in what can and cannot be done.
Most people don't have the slightest idea how the political process works,
leaving them with a profound sense of dis-empowerment. Unfortunately,
what often happens when people venture into the maze of the bureaucracy is
that they end up frustrated, angry, and confused - and give up. I think
the international power-brokers count on this. We are no more to them
than the ant underfoot is to the elephant.
A few months ago, one of the Rainbows here in Eugene said to me, "Why
don't they just leave us alone?" At first I found myself annoyed by what
seemed to me the naivetee of the question, but then I got to thinking. I
really is the crux of the matter. I'm not sure it is an answerable
question.
It is unfathomable to me why the Forest Service - and its
supporters throughout the Washington bureaucracy - care so much about this
issue that they are spending millions (yes, millions, between the
two-pronged attack of police harassment and regulatory intrusion) of
dollars on us when we know we are completely benign and really no threat
to them whatsoever. We gather, we clean up, we go away, leaving no trace.
What exactly is the big deal here?
Is our simple presence such a threat? Or is it that we are the only
people who have had the audacity to say "No!" to them? Are we not allowed
to say "No!"? Are we not allowed to challenge the right of the
bureaucracy to control a fundamental right?
I believe we have not only the right, but the responsibility to stand our
ground. I also believe the only way that will be possible is through a
final challenge to the Constitutionality of the regs in court. Yes, I
have absolute faith we will win eventually. It might take awhile, and it
might take some initial failures. But eventually, I believe the right of
the People to peaceably assemble without restriction will be upheld.
One other dimension to this I think is worthy of mention. I personally
believe there are people in the Forest Service who have conspired to
illegally deprive us of our rights to gather, to express ourselves, and to
pray unimpeded. They have videotaped our license numbers, filmed our
council circles, harassed and intimidated us in every possible way. They
have, I believe, knowingly and willingly attempted to excercise a chilling
effect on our sacred First Amendment rights. Their actions have every
indication of being planned and orchestrated. I want to know two things:
1) Who is the person or persons who have directed this oppression (things
like this don't just happen by accident in the bureaucracy - there's a
definite chain of command)
2) By what means is the money allocated to carry out this scheme?
These are two questions I try to ask of the Incident Commander and the
head of Law Enforcement at each gathering. I have never gotten a direct
answer to my question. Interesting, eh?
Love and Light,
Carla