*stella* <free_medic...@yahoo.com>

May 16, 2008

Memorandum from Tony Nenninger

I have given Mark Rey the benefit of the doubt about his good
intentions by not naming him in his personal capacity as a co-
conspirator in my civil rights suit because he is one of the few high
level officials who has actually come out onto the land during annual
Fourth of July gatherings and taken the time to at least listen to
individuals’ concerns.  However, listening is not enough.  Decisive
official action is required to safeguard unarmed protestors from being
killed by over zealous law enforcement officers.  It’s really that
serious.  Mark can provide that decisive official action by stop
playing the wolf in sheep’s clothing and adopt the language of my
suggested public notice in lieu of the current language of his letter
draft.  It would almost certainly guarantee him personally that he
will not be named as an individual co-conspirator in my civil rights
suit and it would purge his conscience of the guilt that is inevitably
associated with lying and oppressing.  On the other hand, if he keeps
his signature on the unmodified letter he will have a lot of
explaining to do in my civil rights suit to avoid being named as an
individual defendant.  Let’s get real and say what we mean.

There are Religious Freedom Restoration Act compliant alternatives to
the tricky language used in Mark’s letter, such as my suggested
“Public Notice” below.  The social movement has come a long way to get
the Forest Service to use words like “unique” and “discretion”
regarding its options for management of rainbow gatherings.  However,
while some folks might find illusory short term comfort in the notion
that not requiring a signed permit will in itself accommodate the
religiosity of personal autonomy in the context of peaceful voluntary
cooperation at rainbow gatherings and/or the proven false hope that
issuance of an operating plan without a signed permit will lessen
police harassment, I don’t even think Mark’s letter was drafted in
good faith.  I think it is the fruit of an ongoing longstanding
conspiracy to suppress freedom of religious peaceful assembly that has
corrupted the Forest Service.  In case Mark is really not privy to the
evil intentions the drafters of his letter demonstrate in their choice
of language, my detailed critique of the language chosen should give
him notice at this time.  It amazes me how many legal principles the
authors of Mark’s letter were able to squeeze into such a concise
document.  I have not had the opportunity to analyze the revised draft
emailed to some folks on May 14, but my preliminary review of that
text suggests it has made a few favorable cosmetic changes but does
not substantially address the concerns about fictitious implied agency
relationships outlined here.  I cannot think of any good faith reasons
Mark would not be willing to adopt the language of my suggested
“Public Notice” because it addresses all of the issues in his draft
but from a more realistic position.

The text of Mark Rey’s draft letter is:
 My suggestions for an alternative statement from Mark Rey are:

PUBLIC NOTICE

As the Forest Service prepares for rainbow gatherings during 2008,
several individuals have requested clarification of Forest Service
policies regarding these events.  The Agency has discretion with
respect to the manner in which to manage special uses of National
Forest lands.  In recognition of the unique religious nature of
rainbow gatherings, the Forest Service intends to implement the
following management protocols for the purposes of providing the least
restrictive of religious liberty means of regulation that
substantially furthers the Forest Service’s interests in protecting
natural resources, protecting public health and safety, and allocating
resources among National Forest users:

1.      All Forest Service resource management employees will fully
cooperate in promptly providing information regarding Forest Service
lands upon the request of any individuals seeking information about
suitable sites for rainbow gatherings.

2.      Any individual with reasonably reliable information that a site on
National Forest land may be suitable for a rainbow gathering may
request the Forest Service District Ranger with jurisdiction over that
area to issue a preliminary operating plan for management of a rainbow
gathering at that site.

3.      Forest Service District Rangers will promptly evaluate all sites
suggested by any individual with reasonably reliable information
regarding possibly suitable sites for a rainbow gathering and respond
within 48 hours with a publicly available written notice of all site
specific concerns that would require special terms of an operating
plan to protect Forest Service interests.  District Rangers will meet
on a regular basis with individuals interested in site selection for
rainbow gatherings for the purpose of making modifications to proposed
operating plans in such a manner as to maximize accommodation of
concerns of the interested individuals while still protecting Forest
Service interests.

4.      When 75 or more individuals are within visual proximity to each
other at any time at a site that has been suggested as suitable for
public assembly to a Forest Service District Ranger at least 48 hours
in advance of such assembly, the operating plan for that site shall be
publicly declared to be authorized.  Any violation of a term of an
authorized operating plan will subject any individual violator to
citation and/or arrest.  Any individual or sets of individuals who are
aggrieved by any terms of an authorized operating plan have standing
for immediate judicial review.

5.      All law enforcement activities relating to rainbow gatherings will
be the least restrictive of religious liberty means of protecting the
Forest Service’s interests.

6.      All requests for emergency funding must be made by the Forest
Service District Ranger and must be designated for specific purposes
which shall not include funding for law enforcement activities unless
law enforcement is the least restrictive of religious liberty manner
of protecting the Forest Service’s interests.
The problems I see in the letter from Rey are as follows:

The first clause refers to rainbow gatherings in the singular in an
effort to vest legal authority with some recognizable entity instead
of honoring the spiritual value of individual autonomy characteristic
of how folks actually gather.

The first clause also capitalizes “National Rainbow Family” in an
effort to vest legal authority in a central internal government that
is inconsistent with the highly amorphous nature of how rainbow
gatherings actually happen throughout the United
States (and elsewhere) each year.

The first clause also limits the policy concerns to the state of
Wyoming in an effort to escape justification for using a different
standard at smaller scale rainbow gatherings in other regions that do
not have the civil disobedience power typical of the larger
gatherings.

The first clause also capitalizes “Family Members” in an effort to
vest authority in a principal with the power to direct the actions of
the agent(s) they are trying to create.

The first clause also uses the singular and capitalizes “2008
Gathering” in an effort to vest authority in an internal centralized
government.

 The second clause misstates the controversial issue to be whether the
Forest Service can require permits in an effort to avoid addressing
the real issue which is whether the Forest Service can require the
existence of agency relationships as a condition of public assembly.
No court that I am aware of has actually addressed this central issue.

The second clause is ambiguous about if the relevant Forest Service
discretion involves deciding whether or not to use some authorization
process for special uses or if it involves discretion about what kind
of authorizations can be used; it is also ambiguous about precisely
what unique quality of rainbow culture is being accommodated—the net
intention of these ambiguities is to make it look like the Forest
Service is being nice to do anything different than the normally
required permit application process even if such an alternative does
not actually accommodate the spiritual customs that are a concern.

The second clause also uses the phrase “negotiated protocol” in an
effort to vest authority in some agents who are able to make an
agreement on behalf of some principal when in reality the
communications the Forest Service has with citizens about these issues
are not in a representative capacity.

The second clause again uses the proper noun “Rainbow Family” in an
effort to vest power in a principle capable of directing actions of
its agents when in reality we are all autonomous individuals learning
to cooperate voluntarily—a big spiritual and legal difference in how
people behave.

The first numbered paragraph uses the word “forwarded” in an effort to
vest legal authority in some agents to receive communications on
behalf of some principal when in reality information the Forest
Service shares about the suitability of sites for public assemblies is
in the nature of public information for the benefit of all rather than
private information intended only for a private contract.

The first numbered paragraph again limits the context to the state of
Wyoming in an effort to limit accommodation to the situation with the
most civil disobedience leverage in order to avoid addressing the
spiritual customs that permeate smaller gatherings as well.

The first numbered paragraph again uses the proper noun “Rainbow
Family” in an effort to vest authority in a principal with power to
direct the actions of individual participants when in reality rainbow
gathering participants are autonomous to cooperate with who we choose
and where we choose when there is not unanimous consent.

The first numbered paragraph uses the legal term “consider” which
means that there is a legal entity called “Rainbow Family” that can
agree to a contract in exchange for giving something up—in this case
the proposed contract is for individuals to agree to acquiesce in the
designation of agents to contract with the Forest Service for a place
to assemble and to not assemble on any other National Forest land in
consideration for the Forest Service agreeing to not require the
agents to publicly identify themselves by signing a standardized
permit form.  Most rainbow gathering participants would not think this
is a good deal and it is fraudulent for Forest Service officials or
anyone else to attempt to imply that such a deal can be implicitly
authorized by individuals acting as de facto agents when in fact there
are no duly authorized agents.

The second numbered paragraph again uses the proper noun “Rainbow
Family” in an effort to vest institutional authority that does not
already exist.

The second numbered paragraph uses the verb “select” in an effort to
vest authority in a principal with authorized agents when in reality
individuals participating in scouting are capable of only suggesting
well informed ideas to the Forest Service for them to evaluate and
give feedback about for the sake of clarifying public information.

The second numbered paragraph suggests that agents (scouts) for the
principal (Rainbow Family) make an offer for the Forest Service to
agree to allow public assembly only at certain designated sites during
4th of July which would be legally binding upon the principal
regardless of where otherwise autonomous individuals might agree to
gather.

The second numbered paragraph uses the legal term “consider” in an
effort to vest authority in two parties capable of making a contract.
In this case the proposed contract is that individual citizens agree
with the federal government to compromise personal autonomy by
institutionalizing a principal (Rainbow Family) and then acquiescing
to the legal authority of designated or implied agents who enter into
a contract to limit the public land available for public assembly
during the 4th of July in consideration for the Forest Service
promptly paying attention to areas the agents agree to limit public
assembly to.  Most rainbow gathering participants would not think this
is a good deal because the Forest Service is promising to do nothing
that is necessarily beneficial to people interested in peaceful
rainbow gatherings.

The third numbered paragraph is ambiguous about whether “an answer on
suitability prior to Spring Council” means the Forest Service would
identify unique features of operating plans it thinks would be
necessary to adequately mitigate any special concerns about each
particular site of interest or if it means the Forest Service would
outright prohibit public assembly at all but one site during 4th of
July.  This ambiguity is an attempt to imply authority for agents to
limit selection of sites for public assembly prior to the traditional
open public forum of the spring counseling process.

The third numbered paragraph uses the proper noun “Spring Council” in
an attempt to vest implied representative voting authority upon a set
of implied agents when in fact the spring counseling process is a
highly trusted spiritual manner of sharing information that is used to
guide the autonomous choices of thousands of pilgrims about whether
and where to gather.

The fourth numbered paragraph uses the proper nouns “Spring Council”,
“Rainbow Family”, and “Gathering” in an effort to imply agency and
principal relationships capable of creating legally binding contracts
when in reality these spiritual concepts are much too abstract to
constitute bona fide collective legal entities.

The fourth numbered paragraph uses the words “collaboration” and
“mutual” in an effort to suggest the Forest Service is being nice by
imposing contractual authority upon implied agents without the consent
of individuals supposedly constituting the principal instead of
accepting its responsibility to develop an operating plan for use of
public lands that adequately protects the interests of all forest
users regardless of our lack of affiliation with supposed agents
acting on behalf of rainbow gathering participants.

The last three sentences of the fourth numbered paragraph constitute
an oxymoronic suggestion that enforcement of an operating plan is not
a form of permit enforcement in an attempt to avoid addressing the
real issue in controversy of whether the Forest Service can condition
public assembly on individuals forming principal-agent relationships—
not whether some manner of permit for special uses should be
implemented.

The final sentence of the fourth numbered paragraph is ambiguous about
what degree of non-compliance with an operating plan would trigger the
obligation to identify who the implied agents are by requiring a
signed permit.

The fifth numbered paragraph does not respect that the use of force is
inconsistent with the central tenet of non-violence characteristic of
the spiritual practices of the vast majority of rainbow gathering
participants by suggesting law enforcement protocol would be the same
as for other recreational gatherings and forest users instead of
declaring the least restrictive means law enforcement approach that
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act mandates.

The sixth numbered paragraph pre-textually presumes an environmental
emergency in an attempt to cloud the real purpose of declaration of
emergency to funnel money for law enforcement agents to conduct
Homeland Security experiments in crowd control.

The last complete sentence suggests the Forest Service is giving
permission for some agent to communicate an offer to the membership
constituting some collective principal.

The last clause—“Welcome home”—is a patronizing attempt to sound like
it is nice for the Forest Service to condition public assembly on
acquiescing to collective principal and agent relationships.