BB's Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7

A meeting in San Francisco - part 5

From: Principle (matte...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-09 19:38:34 PST

Meeting tomorrow is at Haight-Ashbury library.

1833 Page St. between Cole and Shrader.

Opens at 10 with meeting scheduled for noon.


From: SpunDance (SpunDa...@Alien.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-10 15:04:04 PST

"Principle" <matte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f029cceb.0401091938.7dc8d...@posting.google.com...

> Meeting tomorrow is at Haight-Ashbury library.
> 1833 Page St. between Cole and Shrader.
> Opens at 10 with meeting scheduled for noon.

Why Would you meet in a Building??? Golden gate park, and awesome beachs South of HalfMoon Bay. Drumming and Pot luck. This cant be a Council, in a BUILDING??If it is RAINBOWS gone to the Dogs......

www.spundance.com


From: Jay (barney602...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-10 23:11:42 PST

"SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in message news:<Bx%Lb.6355$Bx5.840273...@twister2.starband.net>...

> Why Would you meet in a Building??? Golden gate park, and awesome beachs South of HalfMoon Bay. Drumming and Pot luck. This cant be a Council, in a BUILDING??If it is RAINBOWS gone to the Dogs......

It rains every other day in SF this time of year.

didn't know council circles included drumming....that's a drum circle.

i think a sf public library is an ideal place for a winter council / meeting.

couldn't find a more friendly and nuetral place to meet with FS folks.


From: SpunDance (SpunDa...@Alien.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-11 16:59:48 PST

"Jay" <barney602...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:636ab3c.0401102311.297e9...@posting.google.com...

> It rains every other day in SF this time of year.
> didn't know council circles included drumming....that's a drum circle.
> i think a sf public library is an ideal place for a winter council / meeting.
> couldn't find a more friendly and nuetral place to meet with FS folks.

dude I lived in S.F Area for 15 years, And Help feed and org. alot events fromSataCruz to SantRosa with the family. it dont rain it Fogs every other day, goto Henery clay Red woods, or other awesome place. But, this must be the NEW way of the Permit Signer??? and fence sitters. MEETING in a Place with Camera's. Watching and recording your Council. Im sure the Feds, will see the meeting too.and it to there Large collection of TREE CAM video... City Rainbows?, you can kick rainbow out of the forest. But you cant kick the Forest outta RAINBOW...

www.spunoneproductions.com


From: Stella (stella_...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-12 09:05:16 PST

"SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in message news:<8kmMb.6863$gy2.914181...@twister2.starband.net>...

> dude I lived in S.F Area for 15 years, And Help feed and org. alot events fromSataCruz to SantRosa with the family. it dont rain it Fogs every other day, goto Henery clay Red woods, or other awesome place. But, this must be the NEW way of the Permit Signer??? and fence sitters. MEETING in a Place with Camera's. Watching and recording your Council. Im sure the Feds, will see the meeting too.and it to there Large collection of TREE CAM video... City Rainbows?, you can kick rainbow out of the forest. But you cant kick the Forest outta RAINBOW..

We were video taping them but they weren't taping us unless it was with spy cameras. I hope they were because we are excellent theater and some profound viewpoints were expressed. Some of our real anger and fears were expressed as well. I want to thank the USFS for sitting in a circle and dialoging with us instead of dictating to us, if any of you are reading this. There were no permit signers or fence sitters at this meeting. I heard consensus on one thing; there is no rainbow hiearchy. I heard that the USFS want our gatherings to be safe and healthy and so do we. There are win/win soloutions and areas of common ground.

metta


From: Jay (barney602...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-12 13:27:50 PST

"SpunDance" <SpunDa...@Alien.net> wrote in message news:<8kmMb.6863$gy2.914181...@twister2.starband.net>...

> dude I lived in S.F Area for 15 years, And Help feed and org. alot events fromSataCruz to SantRosa with the family. it dont rain it Fogs every other day, goto Henery clay Red woods, or other awesome place. But, this must be the NEW way of the Permit Signer??? and fence sitters. MEETING in a Place with Camera's. Watching and recording your Council. Im sure the Feds, will see the meeting too.and it to there Large collection of TREE CAM video... City Rainbows?, you can kick rainbow out of the forest. But you cant kick the Forest outta RAINBOW...

you're right about the fog every other day but this year it has been raining we just got two dry days but it really has been raining all december and jan or at least enough to warrant finding an indoor place, not that I wouldn't sit outside but I don't find a library offensive. you seem easily offended.

camera's watching? family videotaped it. watching and recording? dude read the posts, this was a cooperations council with forest service. so yeah, they were watching. actually participating.

and look man, you don't have to be a so rigid....rainbows don't always have to meet in nature. what's wrong with a public library? we meet in national forests and state parks too, all three are public and administered by government. one local, one state, one federal. there were some old folks there who traveled a long way, why should they have to sit in a damp foggy cold forest in the winter in order to participate. I'm sure they would have but why make it difficult? not to mention the FS people who met with us voluntarily.


From: Jay (barney602...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-12 18:08:37 PST

stella_...@yahoo.com (Stella) wrote in message news:<37d623ab.0401120905.29804...@posting.google.com>...

> We were video taping them but they weren't taping us unless it was with spy cameras. I hope they were because we are excellent theater and some profound viewpoints were expressed. Some of our real anger and fears were expressed as well. I want to thank the USFS for sitting in a circle and dialoging with us instead of dictating to us, if any of you are reading this. There were no permit signers or fence sitters at this meeting. I heard consensus on one thing; there is no rainbow hiearchy. I heard that the USFS want our gatherings to be safe and healthy and so do we. There are win/win soloutions and areas of common ground.

Sheesh, so my take on it was right on. Good, I thought maybe I was deluded. Profound indeed. Very impressive people.


From: Principle (matte...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 10:40:37 PST

stella_...@yahoo.com (Stella) wrote in message news:<37d623ab.0401120905.29804...@posting.google.com>...

> We were video taping them but they weren't taping us unless it was with spy cameras. I hope they were because we are excellent theater and some profound viewpoints were expressed. Some of our real anger
...

The question still remains. Why did I have to post the meeting location when Greg, and others, were discussing and telling selective people, WHEN?

This is only one of the problems folks have with the "players" and "fucalizers."


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 11:31:44 PST

"Principle" <matte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f029cceb.0401131040.46cf3...@posting.google.com...

> The question still remains. Why did I have to post the meeting location when Greg, and others, were discussing and telling selective people, WHEN?
> This is only one of the problems folks have with the "players" and "fucalizers."

I'd love to get a reply from some of these people about what they think they are accomplishing via this bullshit. I'd love to hear a restatement of the "Rainbow Vision" coming from Garrick, Plunker, and all the rest of the "movers & shakers" of this fucking family. 'Cause if they don't start saying something to the rest of us peons in the near future, more people are just going to keep walking away- but maybe that's the plan?

-woodstock-


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 12:11:27 PST

Principle wrote:
...
> The question still remains. Why did I have to post the meeting location when Greg, and others, were discussing and telling selective people, WHEN?
> This is only one of the problems folks have with the "players" and "fucalizers."

Actually the exact site for the meeting didn't happen until the library annex confirmed they could reschedule an event they had planned till later in the day, I believe this occurred on Friday.


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 12:16:58 PST

woodstock wrote:

> I'd love to get a reply from some of these people about what they think they are accomplishing via this bullshit. I'd love to hear a restatement of the "Rainbow Vision" coming from Garrick, Plunker, and all the rest of the "movers & shakers" of this fucking family. 'Cause if they don't start saying something to the rest of us peons in the near future, more people are just going to keep walking away- but maybe that's the plan?
> -woodstock-

You are only a peon if that is how you view yourself. No one forces anyone to volunteer to give their energy to a gathering, it comes from the heart. If you don't feel it in your heart then perhaps your energies are best put to use in other areas of interest. There is an incredable effort being made this year to open all processes to everyone, if you want to contribute, please do, if you just want to whine, well have some cheese with it.


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 12:39:12 PST

"Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:400451BB.CE1F7...@earthlink.net...

> You are only a peon if that is how you view yourself.

Not anymore so...

> No one forces anyone to volunteer to give their energy to a gathering, it comes from the heart. If you don't feel it in your heart then perhaps your energies are best put to use in other areas of interest. There is an incredable effort being made this year to open all processes to everyone, if you want to contribute, please do,

My offer of $5 via paypal still stands- but only for non FS scouts and that's final.

>if you just want to whine, well have some cheese with it.

I want to whine while contributing like you do. (smirk)

-woodstock-


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 14:07:57 PST

woodstock wrote:

...
> >if you just want to whine, well have some cheese with it.

> I want to whine while contributing like you do. (smirk)
> -woodstock-

LOL, well I do like cheese, that's for sure. There will be a PO Box soon where anyone who wants to contribute to scouting can send funds specificially earmarked scouting and we'll see where the money goes.


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-13 14:55:27 PST

"Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:40046BC0.2D97E...@earthlink.net...

> LOL, well I do like cheese, that's for sure. There will be a PO Box soon where anyone who wants to contribute to scouting can send funds specificially earmarked scouting and we'll see where the money goes.

Well if none of the sanctioned scouts will accept PayPal then next year I'll be sure to help scouts I know get set up to accept PayPal. People would be surprised at how many gathering attendees use PayPal today and what could be accomplished using such a tool. I refuse to support sending money in the mail cuz I want Rainbow to be better-faster-cheaper than ever before.

-woodstock-

--
Hey man- check out Hip eBay :
http://www.hipebay.hipplanet.com


From: SpunDance (SpunDa...@Alien.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting Location
Date: 2004-01-15 19:41:35 PST

"Principle" <matte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f029cceb.0401091938.7dc8d...@posting.google.com...

> Meeting tomorrow is at Haight-Ashbury library.
> 1833 Page St. between Cole and Shrader.
> Opens at 10 with meeting scheduled for noon.

Home is where the HEART is, And RAINBOW is a state of mind, not a place...............


From: scottie a. (...@Free-Assembly.org)
Subject: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 01:34:37 PST

| Mo. 12 Jan.'04
|| THIS WAS CONVEYED TO THE 'GATHERING POLICY POWWOW'
| IN SAN FRANCISCO JUST SATURDAY... GRIST FOR THE MILL.
|| xo__sca
|_____________ _________ ______ ___
PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project_
Washington DC St.Louis MO
V/F: 314-781-1042 ..... ...@Free-Assembly.org
_//\______________an Association of Volunteers__/

8 January 2004

Mark S. Rey, USDA Undersecretary
1400 Independence Ave. SW, # 217-E
Washington, DC 20250 Fax: 202-720-0632
Attn: Officials & Individuals in Counsel

For: The Gathering Policy Powwow
High Noon - 10 January 2004
Haight-Ashbury Library, San Francisco, CA

A POSITION ON THE 'DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY'

Greetings to All Concerned:

I was invited to take part in this discussion of 'Group Use' policies with USDA/USFS officials, but regrettably I am unable to attend. Instead I hope to contribute certain points in writing, bringing prior correspondence with Mr. Rey to the table, and adding the comments herein.

Presented for your reference are two formal letters sent to Mr. Rey in the past year:

"Clarification" on Group Uses (2/25/03)... a response to his June '02 policy directive to the Incident Commander, offering direct 'Counterpoints' and observations on its real effects.

Permit 'Negotiations' & Public Health (6/9/03)... a critique of grounds in the Beck permit signing in Utah, and the attempt to impose redundant State health authorities on Federal land.

These are conveyed to the meeting c/o Tony Nenninger (U.S. v. Nenninger, #03-1350, 8th Cir.), with the knowledge that the issues raised are most germane to the discussion. They have been posed to Mr. Rey and not answered, so it is fitting to address them in this forum.

By extension of these arguments, a further issue emerges, not raised publicly to Date:

The "Delegation of Authority" to an Incident Commander is improper as a device of 'Group Use' policy - erroneous as to factual grounds and thresholds, biased as applied selectively to 'Rainbow' gatherings, and violating Forest Service mandates & powers.

1) Gatherings are arbitrarily defined as "Incidents" in disregard for the track record of good faith performance and negligible impacts. In this way the proper thresholds for such a determination are skewed to the purpose of creating Incident Command powers, as an end in itself. On the pretext that such extreme response is required, much manpower and public expense are absorbed without benefit to public interests. In fact a gathering is not an emergency - it is merely a distinctive special use, warranting sensible USFS management and support a notch above normal operations.

2) The annual 'Rainbow Gathering' and many regionals are deemed "Incidents" prospectively - by prior determination, without basis in observed conditions or risks - and selectively as a matter of standing Forest Service policy toward this unique type and creed of special use. This is done with foreknowledge that it triggers a large interagency police presence under Incident Command authorities, and targets participants with "proactive" enforcement. Thus the Delegation of Authority is discriminatory in effect, and by intent. It is unlawful to single out certain expressive activities in this way, under the 'Group Use' regulation or any other.

3) In recent years there has been a shift of administrative powers to USFS Law Enforcement & Investigations, with Special Agents heading the "National Incident Management Team". Forest Service personnel are qualified to protect National Forest lands in broad public interests, but the Delegation of Authority cedes their sanction to unqualified LEO's, acting in narrow enforcement purposes. Arguably this is improper as an abdication of mandated Forest Service powers to a separate agency, with its own chain of command and a different mission. It alters the nature of policy discretion, from grounds of administrative transparency to the secrecy of police work. Moreover as applied to public gatherings, it puts police agencies in primary control over expressive activities - just what the First Amendment was written to prevent.

As originally enacted in 1995, the 'Group Use' regulation posed serious obstacles to gatherings, and controversies from the start. It seems no coincidence that the rise of Incident Command to policy power is linked to rule changes that made the problem worse:

In November 1998 the regulation was amended without notice, adding standards for "Second-level screening of proposed uses" at 36 CFR 251.54(e)(5). The conditions in (i) - (iii) create huge discretions for USFS Officers to deny a proposed use, even injecting a new vague "public interest" clause into permit review. The "Confidentiality" clause in (iv) is troubling where an unknown 'self-designated' agent can be concealed from the group or the public. Most blatant, condition (v) explicitly PRECLUDES authorization of a true consensual assembly, where by definition...

"(v) There is no person or entity authorized to sign a special use authorization and/or there is no person or entity willing to accept responsibility for adherence to the terms and conditions of the authorization." 251.54(e)(5)(v)

In deliberate effect this directly targets assemblies composed of unaffiliated speakers, by their exclusion from any chance of compliance without fraud. 28 USC 1001. Gatherers need immediate relief from this facially invalid provision, even though it has not been directly challenged in court.

In turn its application to gatherings has set loose intensive law enforcement response, to the detriment of constructive cooperation and participants' civil rights, and the greater empowerment of Incident Command. In this light the Delegation of Authority has clearly fostered institutional interests and powers conflicting with legitimate regulatory purposes.

In closing, we hope that this extraordinary meeting is fruitful in the public interest. To this end we urge the Secretary to suspend the Delegation of Authority - restoring qualified Foresters to proper discretion in 'Group Use' policy - as a key element of significant reforms.

Respectfully scribed,
_____________sca________________
Scott C. Addison, Coordinator
Founded__// People for Compassion & Understanding \\__1993


From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 11:38:46 PST

scottie a. wrote:

> Most blatant, condition (v) explicitly PRECLUDES authorization of a true consensual assembly, where by definition...
> "(v) There is no person or entity authorized to sign a special use authorization and/or there is no person or entity willing to accept responsibility for adherence to the terms and conditions of the authorization." 251.54(e)(5)(v)
> In deliberate effect this directly targets assemblies composed of unaffiliated speakers, by their exclusion from any chance of compliance without fraud. 28 USC 1001. Gatherers need immediate relief from this facially invalid provision, even though it has not been directly challenged in court.

It's not a facial violation or any other violation of rights if it is interpreted correctly: as an exception clause written for the case of free assemblies for the purpose of preventing them from being unfairly targetted. Because authorization is precluded, gatherers may participate without authorization. There it is, in black and white, in 251.54(e).

As everyone here knows, however, I am not a lawyer. Trial lawyers and judges seem to be generally prohibited from using logic and common sense. For the rest of us, however, I have the following suggestion:

Instead of passing out the lists of "the terms and conditions of the authorization," I propose instead that section (e)(5)(v) be handed out to participants, howing how authorization (and any resulting terms and conditions) are precluded in their case. In the event of any resulting prosecutions I would like the see exactly how the government would argue that Garrick Beck or any other collaborators were "authorized to sign."

Marty


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 14:30:30 PST

Marty wrote:

...
> Instead of passing out the lists of "the terms and conditions of the authorization," I propose instead that section (e)(5)(v) be handed out to participants, howing how authorization (and any resulting terms and conditions) are precluded in their case. In the event of any resulting prosecutions I would like the see exactly how the government would argue that Garrick Beck or any other collaborators were "authorized to sign."
> Marty

Far too rational. The Gummint need not argue any point. The judiciary, biased as can be, can hold all such points irrelevant.

Sanity


From: huray (rayst...@getgoin.net)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 18:44:56 PST

Sanity-Clause <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<4002CAC9.8731E...@worldnet.att.net>...

...
> Far too rational. The Gummint need not argue any point. The judiciary, biased as can be, can hold all such points irrelevant.
> Sanity

Agreed Sanity, but your premise is not a reason to fail, or withdraw, from holding the truth in their face, and putting them in the reality of knowing, within themselves, that they are liar's, trader's, and coward's


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 20:51:40 PST

huray wrote:
...
> Agreed Sanity, but your premise is not a reason to fail, or withdraw, from holding the truth in their face, and putting them in the reality of knowing, within themselves, that they are liar's, trader's, and coward's.

They already know all that stuff deep down Ray. They operate 'with guilty minds' [Latin: "in mens rea"] else what they're doing wouldn't be criminal malfeasance, it'd be forgivable human error type misfeasance. Oh, and it's spelled "traitors."

Sanity


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-12 22:58:10 PST

"Sanity-Clause" <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:4003243F.C2B62...@worldnet.att.net...

> huray wrote:
...
> They already know all that stuff deep down Ray. They operate 'with guilty minds' [Latin: "in mens rea"] else what they're doing wouldn't be criminal malfeasance, it'd be forgivable human error type misfeasance. Oh, and it's spelled "traitors."
> Sanity

Oh. I just thought it just another person who didn't like trading circle.

-woodstock-


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: PCU position_/Delegation of Authority
Date: 2004-01-13 07:14:09 PST

woodstock wrote:
...
> Oh. I just thought it just another person who didn't like trading circle.
> -woodstock-

Of course you did....


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: USFS Meeting Opportunity/Contact persons
Date: 2004-01-13 11:13:36 PST

Karin Zirk wrote:

> BJ wrote:

> > Karin,
> > I would ask you (or anybody)torethink the suggestion of "contact persons". I personally believe there are other ways to fullfill whateve

I believe it was adequately explained to the USFS how having a single contact person, like last year in Utah, resulted in more confrontational situations due to information not being transmitted as needed. It was also explained that this year a C0-operations council effort will be made and any USFS "issues" can be brought to this council, open to all, to be dealt with or at least for pertinent information to be directed in the right direction. I don't believe that "de-centralization" is an issue where "individuals" are gathered and functioning as individuals for the good of the whole. Certainly, designated contact persons doesn't work.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: USFS Meeting Opportunity/Contact persons
Date: 2004-01-13 11:43:38 PST

Sailor wrote:

> I believe it was adequately explained to the USFS how having a single contact person, like last year in Utah, resulted
...

I've no desire to be represented by "a C0-operations council" or anyone else.

Sanity


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: USFS Meeting Opportunity/Contact persons
Date: 2004-01-13 12:04:18 PST

Sanity-Clause wrote:

> I've no desire to be represented by "a C0-operations council" or anyone else.

The Co-operations council does not act as a representation for anyone, it simply acts as a point of contact for the USFS or anyone else at a gathering who desires to connect with folks doing projects they'd like to be a part of.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: USFS Meeting Opportunity/Contact persons
Date: 2004-01-13 12:31:11 PST

Sailor wrote:

> The Co-operations council does not act as a representation for anyone, it simply acts as a point of contact for the USFS or anyone else at a gathering who desires to connect with folks doing projects they'd like to be a part of.

If the USFS needs to contact me they don't need to go through Co-operations council...... If I feel the need to contact the USFS I won't be going to or through Co-operations council..... This is bullshit, it's the establishment and ordination of a de facto OFFICE, viz.: "Co-operations council." I dissent.

Sanity


From: gary stubbs (rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: USFS Meeting Opportunity/Contact persons
Date: 2004-01-13 20:02:35 PST

Sanity-Clause <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40040065.946F8...@worldnet.att.net>...

> If the USFS needs to contact me they don't need to go through Co-operations council...... If I feel the need to contact the USFS I won't be going to or through Co-operations council..... This is bullshit, it's the establishment and ordination of a de facto OFFICE, viz.: "Co-operations council." I dissent.

sorry sanity but your wrong on this one ....co_ops cant speak for anyone because co_ops is a process... not a feature...or a club..or even a council as such.... anyone who has attended a co-ops council can certainly speak to anypone ...including th usfs if they so desire...and if the usfs wishs to comunicate to anyone ...who then choss to repeate that converatison at a co_ops council...this certainly doesnt rob anyone of their rights ...nor places the co_ops process...or the council it takes place at...as a leader or athourity figure...or any thing other then a Process....co_ops is a process...and the process takes place in a council setting....but the is no ( and there was no concensus for ) a co_ops council...only the process........ so noone is talking or claiming to speak for you or anyone else .....and no one nor anything cant claim to spak for the "family" since in a legal sense...it doesnt exsist ecexpt as a process it self


From: scottie a. (...@Free-Assembly.org)
Subject: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-15 16:39:16 PST

_PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project_
_//\_________________________________________
Mo. 12 Jan.'04 Commentary

THE TREATY CHIEF TRAP...

A few reflections on the 'Gathering Policy Powwow' in San Francisco, where some High Holy Hippies and U.S. Honchos convened on Saturday, 10 Jan. 2004:

From afar, from the get-go, this event had the scent of a momentous and surreal ritual. It was staged symbolically at the Library in Haight-Ashbury*, the renowned birthplace of the '67 Summer of Love and the cultural liberation movement that followed. A rogue's gallery of fuzzy wizards, festooned devotees & ardent space cadets converged... then The Suits strode in, salutations & glad-hands all around, and pontifications commenced.

It had to be the stuff of legend, an amazing meld of high Summit and Circus, great theatre at least, and I can only imagine the charisma cults and crossfires in that room. Then again, there were very serious matters on the table, of impact upon near-term affairs of the Gatherings and fundamental rights far into the future. I really want to know what really happened there.

I have viewed this Powwow with a mix of optimism in solutions that could emerge, and consternation that irrevocable mistakes might be made. In this regard I admonish gatherers who took part - and the organizers most of all - that in the eyes of officials, they stood in a representative posture the moment they walked in, no matter what claims they made of coming as individuals. Realize that government employees are there solely in an official capacity as regulators, and their perceptions follow their premises.

My concern follows the lessons of history - the pattern of official contacts and prosecutions around gatherings in recent years, and the longer legacy of how 'treaty chiefs' have been used and abused by U.S. Government policies.

Since this rule was enacted in 1995, at every gathering where people have come forth personally in good faith, the Forest Service has construed this as an act of 'de facto agency' for the so-called 'Rainbow Family'. Thereby it is inferred that certain individuals Can and Do speak for the 'group', so they Can and Must sign a permit.

Those who came to this meeting engaged yet another 'consented contact' with the Forest Service, of greater magnitude and risk: Negotiating for the gatherings beyond their duration and Off the Land, they assume an administrative business footing, and play into the fiction of an ongoing "unincorporated association". This is why 'Rainbow Legaliaison' was abolished in 1994, wary of creating such an appearance.

Now after a stack of botched court rulings that have left the Government's allegation of a "Group" intact, they may again be trapped in those shoes, big-time & irreversibly - especially with the same self-appointed players who keep stepping into them. They may as well be the 'Rainbow Board of Directors', in the Feds' view.

What makes this meeting most perilous is the blithe hope that goodwill and reason will reconcile differences, and gain saving concessions from the U.S. Government. Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce first fought and lost, then embraced this view, and he never got to go home. It's basic realpolitiks: Negotiating from a position of weakness usually does not work. So in the wake of blown court cases and capitulations in recent gatherings, this hope seems misguided, and very vulnerable.

From such past moves there has been strong drift toward turning Rainbow gatherings into 'group-sponsored' events. Now the highest USFS officials figure they know whom to call upon to ACT LIKE 'leaders' (no matter what they say), and play this out as the rules demand, or else go back to jail.

Obviously this goes beyond the arcane verbiage, the pseudo-civility and veiled coercion affecting a few upright stubborn hippies. The Feds have been trying to subvert the gatherings for 30 years, and by these devices would fundamentally alter their nature and diverse genius as consensual assemblies. At stake now is something not negotiable - personal standing in 1st, 5th, & 9th Amendment protections, as a core creed and legal fact. This bears upon the liberty interests of all citizens... no retreat, no surrender.

Thanks, Respects...
________sca_________________
Scottie Addison, Scribe
...@Free-Assembly.org
----------------------------------

*Haight-Ashbury Library
1833 Page St., San Francisco CA
Open 10 AM, Meeting at Noon


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-15 20:13:29 PST

"scottie a." <...@Free-Assembly.org> wrote in message news:4896b49f.0401151639.2230...@posting.google.com...

> A few reflections on the 'Gathering Policy Powwow' in San Francisco, where some High Holy Hippies and U.S. Honchos convened on Saturday, 10 Jan. 2004
...
& 9th Amendment protections, as a core creed and legal fact. This bears upon the liberty interests of all citizens... no retreat, no surrender.

Nice.

-woodstock-

--
Hey man- check out Hip eBay :
http://www.hipebay.hipplanet.com


From: gary stubbs (rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-15 23:23:01 PST

IM sorry scottie...but legaleze..and high falutten words....over written like a harvard lawyer....still dont chcnge the fact that you werent there...and dont know the real tone of the meeting.....sure there were sheep and lambs at that meeting...willing to negociate from weakness...and even bend over to make peace ....but there were many...who have been involved with the usfs and been lied to over and over.. who dont have short term memory loss... who know from experience that they cant be trusted.....and the general tone as I read it at the closing of the meeting was that it was clear there wasnt anyone there who was going to sign a permit....this meeting was not a tailor made..hand picked..by invitation only bunch of folk that showed up...it was rainbow in all its diversity...diversity of look....tone .....delivery....perspective....viewpoint... and if the feds came away from that meeting with any clear understanding about the "family" it could only be that no one represents anyone ...cause that was clear to a blind man.....its easy to jump to conclutions scottie basic bias"s....but next time research...its more reliable


From: jbird (jaberwockinmawkinb...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 01:22:52 PST

...@Free-Assembly.org (scottie a.) wrote in message news:<4896b49f.0401151639.2230...@posting.google.com>...

> THE TREATY CHIEF TRAP...
> A few reflections on the 'Gathering Policy Powwow' in San Francisco, where some High Holy Hippies and U.S. Honchos convened on Saturday, 10 Jan. 2004:
...

I thought the meeting was supposed to be online, with teleconference so the public could dial in.

Whatever--

It is said that "Rainbows" video taped it.

Damage done, it is only appropriate that that video be put online, so everyone can try to figure out what may be done to repair that damage.

Like last year, when people were beggin' to be informed about what was going down, when people were beggin' for the contract to be posted--it just didn't happen, not a word until it was all over, come and gone, and even then scantly a good detailed and honest account. So far this time 'round, they simply refuse to communicate (excepting Jay). I'll not hold my breath waiting.

If I get the will and means, I'm going to one of the other gatherings, no matter how large or small. Where the high hollies gather, I don't. Permitted or not, "I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more." The way I sees it, if they really want it, it's all on them, now. Time to move on, and let the real thing happen again, elsewhere if that's what must be.

--jbird


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 03:00:46 PST

jbird wrote:

> [chomp]
> If I get the will and means, I'm going to one of the other gatherings, no matter how large or small. Where the high hollies gather, I don't. Permitted or not, "I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more." The way I sees it, if they really want it, it's all on them, now. Time to move on, and let the real thing happen again, elsewhere if that's what must be.

Disclaimer: I am going camping in the Ozarks July 1-7-04. I am NOT hosting or proposing an alternative "other" Rainbow Gathering or event of any kind. All in the world I'm doing is going camping and posting the location on AGR, shortly after the summer solstice. If, when I show up on the 1st of July, there's an A-camp/ hobo-jungle/ alternative-Rainbow/ anarchist/ "no Permit here!" rally going on I may leave immediately! I am not a leader, fuckalizer, or chief.

Sanity


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 07:18:15 PST

"gary stubbs" <rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b334dc77.0401152323.2c7b7...@posting.google.com...

> IM sorry scottie...but legaleze..and high falutten words....over written like a harvard lawyer....still dont chcnge the fact that you werent there...and dont know
...

Was the FED's decision maker there?

-woodstock-


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 07:23:30 PST

"jbird" <jaberwockinmawkinb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e87ab3b6.0401160122.73e78...@posting.google.com...

> ...@Free-Assembly.org (scottie a.) wrote in message news:<4896b49f.0401151639.2230...@posting.google.com>...
> I thought the meeting was supposed to be online, with teleconference so the public could dial in.
...
farm no more." The way I sees it, if they really want it, it's all on them, now. Time to move on, and let the real thing happen again, elsewhere if that's what must be.
> --jbird

I happen to agree with this particular post of yours jbird. I just wish we could get over the small shit and work toward real change in the family.

-woodstock


From: Butterfly Bill (farfallab...@myappendixisp.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 09:17:32 PST

...@Free-Assembly.org (scottie a.) wrote:

> From afar, from the get-go, this event had the scent of a momentous and surreal ritual. It was staged symbolically at the Library in Haight-Ashbury*, the renowned birthplace of the '67 Summer of Love and the cultural liberation movement that followed. A rogue's gallery of fuzzy wizards, festooned devotees & ardent space cadets converged... then The Suits strode in, salutations & glad-hands all around, and pontifications commenced.
> It had to be the stuff of legend, an amazing meld of high Summit and Circus, great theatre at least, and I can only imagine the charisma cults and crossfires in that room.
> Then again, there were very serious matters on the table, of impact upon near-term affairs of the Gatherings and fundamental rights far into the future.
> I really want to know what really happened there.

Obviously you don't know, but it looks like you had no trouble filling in all the blanks and giving us a detailed picture based on your prejudices.

-BB


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 11:25:05 PST

gary stubbs wrote:

> IM sorry scottie...but legaleze..and high falutten words....over written like a harvard lawyer....still dont chcnge the fact that you werent there...and dont know
...

LOL, I'm not sure, I think the chicken represented me fairly well.


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 11:29:47 PST

> Was the FED's decision maker there?>
> -woodstock-

Not sure who the Fed's decision maker is, but there were certainly 3 or 4 folks there who could go a long way toward greasing the wheels.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 13:30:06 PST

Butterfly Bill wrote:

> Obviously you don't know, but it looks like you had no trouble filling in all the blanks and giving us a detailed picture based on your prejudices.

Nah, he's just the scribe; it was the "PCU---.org" that has the prejudices....

Sanity


From: gary stubbs (rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 16:53:30 PST

Sailor <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<40083A34.12AC0...@earthlink.net>...

> LOL, I'm not sure, I think the chicken represented me fairly well.

contrary to popular opinnion..the chicken ewas not a dumb cluck.... he spoken well and wish distintion.... he made more sense in one kackel then billie o"looney makes in a week......I vote the chicken as our leader and he has my permission to speak to the usfs on my behalf anytime.... hes smarter then o'looney...more intelligent company...and more pleasent to be around


From: William O'Leary (wole...@compu-savers.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 17:37:22 PST

gary stubbs wrote:

> contrary to popular opinnion..the chicken ewas not a dumb cluck.... he spoken well and wish distintion.... he made more sense in one kackel then billie o"looney makes in a week

Aaawww, ain't that just precious.... you and your boyfriend use the same pet name for me.... I am so touched.... no, really I'm touched.

--
All the best for LESS !!!
Compu-Savers
http://www.compu-savers.net


From: Watering Hole (watrinh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-19 05:25:04 PST

"Treaty Chief Trap" is "non-sequitor" !

O.K. ?

http://community.webtv.net/watrinhole/WateringHole


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-19 14:04:35 PST

When you don't include at least some of the text you are replying to, like AT

Watering Hole wrote:

> "Treaty Chief Trap" is "non-sequitor" !
> O.K. ?

LEAST the name of the person you are commenting on, I can't tell WTF you're talking about.

Sanity


From: gary stubbs (rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-19 19:33:34 PST

Butterfly Bill <farfallab...@myappendixisp.com> wrote in message news:<Xns947272B708056farfallab...@65.100.3.61>..

> Obviously you don't know, but it looks like you had no trouble filling in all the blanks and giving us a detailed picture based on your prejudices.
> -BB

lololol lmao.....HO...HO...HO... you havea knack BB


From: Jay (barney602...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-22 01:01:17 PST

It was just as Gary describes. I couldn't say it any better. I wish someone would put the video online also as it would show that there is absolutely nothining to hide.

I refused to go into any more detail because I don't want to misstate anything. unfortunately I don't have photographic memory.

as far as, the weak negotiating with the strong....that is true. what can I say except that we didn't negotiate whether or not we would gather. That was an assumption by all parties. Uh.....short of the leo's bashing heads and going haywire with roadblocks etc, I think they know we will gather without a permit. Even the "elders" there or what some may call secret leaders bluntly stated that they wanted to go back to the days when the FS let us gather with an operating plan and didn't required permit, and pointed out that things have only gotten worse since permits have been signed. That much I do remember was said in so many words....of course the person or persons who said that were speaking as individuals....NO one seemed to have the intention of signing or at least didn't have the guts to come forward.

To qualify myself: I am against permits! I found and met Garrick last year just to give him a piece of my mind if that helps any of you rabid anti-permit people trust me even a bit. I feel disempowered when someone signs for me. I felt very disempowered last year, but for the record I can't dislike Garrick....his act of signing I dislike. I don't like holding grudges. Not that I haven't done so. He tried something that didn't work. I'll take him at his word. I'd be surprised if he ever does it again and I'll be really surprised if someone does it this year, so ya'll anti-permit people should come this year. Then again I can't control what other people do so.........nevertheless it would surprise me. I get upset thinking that someone might, so I won't.

Finally, I like to put out there this for contemplating: The Gathering, is that, a Gathering, not a festival. It's the festival oriented family who are more used to paying fees and having, well festivals.... This is only what I have notice from sitting around fires and conversing. In the end, these type of gatherers will go along with a permit. The ideals of gathering and building a self sustaining community for ten days need to be elevated, that should be the concern of anti-permit people because the more people are educated about the ideals the more likely they are to understand that the gathering is more than a festival/party. I'll shut up.


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-22 10:17:01 PST

Jay wrote:

> It was just as Gary describes. I couldn't say it any better. I wish someone would put the video online also as it would show that there is absolutely nothining to hide.
> I refused to go into any more detail because I don't want to misstate anything. unfortunately I don't have photographic memory.

> He tried something that didn't work. I'll take him at his word. I'd be surprised if he ever does it again and I'll be really surprised if someone does it this year, so ya'll anti-permit people should come this year.

Based on my own personal conversations with Garrick, I also believe he feels the permit did not work. Also, based on my own personal experiences with both folks at Thanksgiving Council and the open public meeting in S.F. where I pointedly asked, in circle if anyone "was planning" to sign a permit this year -- no one responding in the affirmitive, it is my conclusion that a permit is a non issue at this point. For what it is worth, I will be putting my energies toward the annual gathering this year, however, should anyone, renig and take out a permit application, I would immdiately stop any effort on my part and withdraw. I will not support any gathering where someone voluntarily signs away the right to freedom of assembly or signs to act as an agent for non consenting individuals.


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-22 10:26:19 PST

"Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4010132F.7BD37...@earthlink.net...

> Based on my own personal conversations with Garrick, I also believe he feels the permit did not work. Also, based on my own personal experiences with both folks at Thanksgiving Council and the open public meeting in S.F. where I pointedly asked, in circle if anyone "was planning" to sign a permit this year -- no one responding in the affirmitive, it is my conclusion that a permit is a non issue at this point. For what it is worth, I will be putting my energies toward the annual gathering this year, however, should anyone, renig and take out a permit application, I would immdiately stop any effort on my part and withdraw. I will not support any gathering where someone voluntarily signs away the right to freedom of assembly or signs to act as an agent for non consenting individuals.

Right on sailor. Don't forget to have a backup site in case some idiot tries to be a hero.

-woodstock-


From: Razzbar (gl...@potatoradio.f2s.com)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-22 17:37:26 PST

"woodstock" <thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eBUPb.57036$zs4.14...@fed1read01>...

> "Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4010132F.7BD37...@earthlink.net...

> > I will not support any gathering where someone voluntarily signs away the right to freedom of assembly or signs to act as an agent for non consenting individuals.

Which is to agree that they CAN do these things and it's legit.

> Right on sailor. Don't forget to have a backup site in case some idiot tries to be a hero.
> -woodstock-

Which is to assume that they won't follow you and do it again.

I'd rather just stand my ground.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-22 17:45:03 PST

Razzbar wrote:

> > "Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4010132F.7BD37...@earthlink.net...
> > > I will not support any gathering where someone voluntarily signs away the right to freedom of assembly or signs to act as an agent for non consenting individuals.

> Which is to agree that they CAN do these things and it's legit.

> > Right on sailor. Don't forget to have a backup site in case some idiot tries to be a hero.
> >-woodstock-

> Which is to assume that they won't follow you and do it again.
> I'd rather just stand my ground.

So would I. The trouble is, just standing on ground that is under a Permit is seen as support for Permits. Q.E.D.

Sanity

 

Next Part

Previous Part

BB's Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 > 6 > 7