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

A meeting in San Francisco - part 6

From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Of "offices" and "officers": was/Re: SF Powwow_The Treaty Chief Trap
Date: 2004-01-16 18:22:47 PST

"scottie a." wrote:

> _PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project_

Sounds official.... Hmmm. Kind of like: "Co-operations council."

> _//\____________________________________________
> Mo. 12 Jan.'04 Commentary

"Commentary" by Scottie, under the name of the office he created, viz.: "PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project." Why the office? And Scottie claims to be empowered by the "PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project" as its "Scribe." Gee, they even had scribes in the days of yore so it must be - - - -

1- Okay/official;

2- Okay/traditional;

3- Okay/because under the auspices of the PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project;

4- Okay/ if the PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project checks out as okay;

5- Suspicious because there's no check or balance against perfidy re "PCU_//\_Free Assembly Project" only blind trust.

Decode your answers now, without forgetting to carry the bum, but color me cynical.

> THE TREATY CHIEF TRAP...

This historically includes the ordination and establishment of offices peopled by co-operative officers. Latest is the "Co-operations council" which is being seen as somehow representative. The USFS can't get anyone to represent the gatherers, so now the gatherers are s'pozedly represented by an office. The next logical step is to get the gatherers to accept the actions of "Co-operations council" as analogous to a city council, making a "Council Consensus" equal to ordinance.... Remember, EVERYTHING Hitler did was LEGAL under German laws and statutes.

The way I see it, the law ought to be measured by right and wrong, and when right and wrong are measured by the law it is the same as measuring a ruler with a stick. [Sick twisted jokes from Usenet idiots and flamers aimed at detracting from this basic truth are expected and will be ignored by me.]

> 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.

If no one was arrested for foisting the Permit Regulation on the public the whole thing was theater. There was certainly no one there upholding the law as stated at Title 18, U.S.C.A., Sections 241-242; and no one there with my proxy or empowered by my trust.

> 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.

Like Garrick signing "for himself alone" while naming a Group that included everyone who came.

> Realize that government employees are there solely in an official capacity as regulators, and their perceptions follow their premises.

"regulators" of the public instead of stewards of the public's property.

> 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.

In the Nenninger Case the appellate (hamster food) court ruled where the "Rainbow Family" could go, even though the "Rainbow Family" was never a Party to the Issue and was never represented by anyone at any time..... The message I got was: "We don't have to make sense for you have no recourse."

> 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.

"No one may speak for Rainbow, but Garrick Beck can't help himself." - Scottie A.

> 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.

That's what High Holies have always been about. Ain't nothin' new.

> 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.

It is a "legal fact" that the Gummint doesn't enforce Title 18, U.S.C.A., Sections 241-242 against its own officers. Arbitrary execution of laws is the hallmark of a Tyranny.

> This bears upon the liberty interests of all citizens... no retreat, no surrender.

"Hasta la victoria siempre!" - Che

"Get off the King's Commons!" - the Redcoats, 1775

"Avoid rather than oppose." - a sage. I'm gonna camp in the Ozarks and avoid. :^)

Sanity


From: Carla (ca...@efn.org)
Subject: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-16 19:29:20 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 the real tone of the
...
its easy to jump to conclutions scottie basic bias"s....but next time research...its more reliable

snip Scott Addison's commentary.

Well said, Gary.

Also, to all who may wonder, yes, Gary did his heyoka dance for awhile at the meeting. He also said some very profound and moving things, and made some very good points, as did many other people.

I apologize to all for not having said more on AGR about the meeting; but I literally have not had time. Today is the first day since getting back that I have had the luxury of sitting down in a relatively well-rested state and reflecting on the events of last Saturday. What follows will be a more gestalt type report than a detailed account, so if I get specifics wrong or leave something out, I hope others who were at the meeting will correct me and fill in the blanks.

I've heard others object to how the meeting place got decided. I, too, have issues with how it got set up and with the degree to which access was limited by whatever limitations were placed upon people who were not able to attend Friday's meeting. By the time I had enough information about the meeting to even consider going, it was December 27, and I thought airline tickets would be prohibitively expensive. I went online and found an unbelievably low price on a direct flight from Eugene to San Francisco. I called a sister who lives in Oakland and arranged to stay at her place. The first day of class for the new term ended up being cancelled due to the snow and ice, so I had no school assignments and therefore absolutely no obligations to distract me.

It seemed as though the universe was clearing my path to go to this meeting. Even if the manner in which it was planned and publicized left much to be desired, how could I not go?

And I did want to go. The main reason was that the Undersecretary of Agriculture was scheduled to be there. I didn't have much interest in meeting with the local Forest Service folks, as I won't be involved in either scouting or set-up this year. I never have any interest in meeting with the FS LEOs, and the very thought of meeting with members of the NIMT is befuddling.

But the opportunity was irresistable to meet with someone in government who has the ability to affect policy. Actually being able to have a policy maker's ear is a golden opportunity, one that should never be passed up, in my opinion. And to be able to talk to this particular policy-maker seemed a miracle. Again, I may have reservations about who set up the meeting and why, but the fact remains that this is the guy who really needs to hear why permits and heavy law enforcement approaches to the gathering are not necessary and are in fact counterproductive.

So I went.

My Sis and I got to the park at noon on Friday. It was drizzling rain. There were a few people standing about.Over the next hour, more people came. We circled, OMed, and sat down to begin. It was showering off and on. A few folks made introductory comments about what they thought the meeting should be about and how it should be structured. Latecomers arrived. We circled again. We talked some more.

It began to rain steadily. In spite of the fact that people were relatively well-prepared, it became obvious to everyone in a fairly short time that we would be unable to continue. Fingers were getting numb, pants legs were wet; many people there were in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s, and some had health problems.

A large warm, dry space was offered, and the circle accepted. A few people remained behind to direct late folks to the new spot.

We settled into the new spot, which was a large, empty room of a house in the Mission district. People visited, warmed up, and eventually settled in to talk some more. You notice I don't say "council." I didn't see this as being a council. It was just a bunch of individuals sharing how they see things.

There were lots of interruptions, a couple of voices dominated the discussions, and most folks who had information to share never really got a chance to finish what they were saying when they were answering someone's questions. One person ended the evening by declaring that we had agreed on the specifics of the next day's "agenda." Someone else informed him that nobody had agreed to anything, which was true.

The circle had been the usual Rainbow chaos, and no agreements could have been reached even if specific proposals had been made. My sense was that many people were frustrated with the lack of any coherence to the discussion, though. We got no further than the agenda: what topic, in which order, and how much time for each item--and we had no agreement on that. Jeff Kline at one point announced that he would moderate the discussion, and folks immediately let him know that was not acceptable.

Personally, it didn't bother me much that we didn't get any farther than the bare bones. As we're all individuals there's not any sort of statement, position, or agreement that can arise out of such a circle. I was content merely to be basking in the presence of my family. There were about fifty people there--give or take a dozen--and though I've known many of them forever, I rarely get to hang out with them.

Later on, folks seemed to feel that a moderator would be helpful, and a few different names were discussed. By the next day, it seemed obvious that Randy was acceptable to everyone, and Tisa was available as backup moderator.

We got together again at noon at the Public Library the next day. The room was arranged with long tables end to end--eight to ten of them, I think--in an approximate circle. There was room for four people at each table, and this was adequate. Some people chose to stand or sit elsewhere around the room.

It made for a circle that was large in size, and the room was empty but for the tables and chairs. There wasn't too much echo, though and we could hear each other fine. I asked if anyone had any objections to audio taping the meeting, and no one did. Someone else announced that they would be videoing, as well. I set my cassette deck on a chair in the center of the circle and wisecracked something about this not being a sacred holy icon for anyone to pray to, and that the microphone was not a Peace Pole of any kind.

I counted forty people in the room as we started. Five were government: Undersecrerary of Agriculture Mark Rey; Jack Blackell, Regional Forester for the Pacific Southwest Region; Donna Grosz, Recreation Special Use Assistant, Pacific Southwest Region; Special Agent Dave Ferell, 2nd to the top man in F.S. Law Enforcement; and Ann Melle, Assistant Director Law Enforcement and Investigations, USDA-FS.

Among the gathering folk, I knew about about half of them, and one half of those not very well. There was old family, young family, and everything in between. There were no children present, and no dogs. There was, however, a pet chicken.

Not everybody there had been at the meeting the day before. Not everyone who had been at the meeting the day before was at the library meeting. Garrick was conspicuous in his absence. He and many others felt it was important that Mr. Rey and his colleagues understood that Garrick was not in charge of anything, and never had been, and that the USDA/FS just needed to get used to talking to many people, and not just one or two.

And that's exactly what happened. For the most part, we followed a model where someone would introduce a topic, talk for a few minutes, then get a response from Mr. Rey and his associates. For the most part, folks were respectful, took turns talking, and really listened to what others had to say. Yes, there were some typical rainbow council moments, but as I said earlier, they took the form of coyote energy, which if you talk some time to appreciate it, makes its own contribution to the whole.

Mr. Rey began by saying that Forest Service personnel and gatherers have a commonality--love of the national forest. He stressed that this year's gathering would be approached not as a law enforcement event, but as a recreational event. I was thrilled to hear this, as it reflects a major change from the policy that has been in place since 1998.

I should say at this point that my impression--though I could certainly be wrong--was that the gov't reps believed that there would be more acceptance of a permit this year. They kept referring to how much better the gathering went with a permit. And every time they did, someone countered from a gatherer's point of view with specifics on why they did not see that as being the case.

What happened around this was remarkable, at least to me. Mr. Rey and Co. actually listened to what people had to say, and the meeting became a forum for airing past grievances. Many incidents and complaints were discussed. And I emphasize again: Mark Rey, Jack Blackwell, Dave Ferrell and Donna Grosz **really** listened and responded in a very real fashion, often talking notes on specific points when people put forward their objection to certain actions by the LEOs, or to suggestions about how things could be done better by the FS.

For the most part, I believe they tried to answer questions honestly, to the best of their ability. Yes, some of their answers were "we can't change that at this time, but we will go away and think about it." In the context of the discussion, this answer often made sense. As we all know, it could also mean nothing. And as we all know, promises are meant to be broken. And, of course, people in government are often the worst offenders.

But notwithstanding the usual distrust of government, and given the very justified paranoia (after all, they really have been persecuting us for all these years), I am still heartened, and I consider this meeting a huge success. For the very first time, gatherers have been able to have their perspective heard of how things go, and why they go the way they do, and how they could go better with less interference from over-regulations and excessive law-enforcement. The only input the guys at the top have had up to this point is the information that people like Malcolm Jowers and Rose Davis have fed them for years.

So this guy Jeff Kline, who has been to gatherings and who some folks think is the devil incarnate because he applied for a permit in Idaho, also has government contracts (owns a radio network) and has made friends with Mark Rey. He was also friends with Mike Dombeck, and the infamous Santa Fe meeting grew out of this relationship.

Okay, so Jeff is someone who comes to gatherings and doesn't really know how it all happens, and is pretty condescending and contemptous of most other gatherers; he is arrogant and totally ignorant of his position of white privilege. He's got money and he's got connections to the feds, which automatically makes him suspect.

But there is no doubt in my mind that whatever it is that Jeff has experienced at gatherings, he--like thousands of others uninformed about the whys and wherefores of Rainbow culture and politics--has truly fallen in love with Rainbow. He knows the money spent on the gatherings is totally unnecessary, he knows that the heavy law enforcement presence is totally unnecessary. He talks to Mark Rey about the gatherings, he tells him his experience, he invites him to come see for himself. And Mark Rey does.

So now Jeff would like folks to get together and talk, which I think is a good idea. Communication is a good thing. Some way or another (I am not privy to any of this), arrangements are made and the word goes out. Doesn't make Jeff a hero. Doesn't make him a villain, either. It just makes him a man who has the connection to make things happen.

I don't think he was happy with the way it went, but he had the grace to retreat into the background when he saw that there was a force at work here that he had not anticipated. That force was a united front against permits in general and against a permit for next summer in particular.

Now mind you, I suspect that Jeff and the USDA/FS team started out believing that a permit would be signed this year. They believe there's nothing wrong with permits, and think things went better with one in Utah. I told them early on in the meeting that I didn't think they were going to get someone to sign a permit this year--that I didn't see it and I didn't hear it. They seemed distressed, **but continued to express a desire to cooperate to work out a successful gathering, and to make a collaborative effort for environmental protection, relations with the local tribes, pulbic health and safety, etc.**

Some people continued to press, asking how much cooperation there would be if there was no permit. There seemed to be some division on this. Ann Melle said "Well, then, the gathering can't happen." Others on the team indicated that health, safety, and environmental concerns were the most important things to them and that they wanted a cooperative effort, permit or no permit.

Mr. Rey did at one point indicate a willingness to look at possible changes to the regs, but said that it was a long process to change them, and that there wasn't time between now and the gathering to follow the proper process with public comment, etc. He stressed that these regulations had to be applied equally to all users of the National Forest, and that there were other groups whose intentions were not as benign as Rainbow's and who would challenge the FS in a hot second if a waiver were given to rainbow and not others.

People continued to inform him that the regulations themselves offer a clause for "alternatives." I suspect that most of the people who deal with gatherings have not read either the regs or the entire permit, and asked them if they had, and suggested that they review them. I asked them if they realized that the 2nd page has a clause that states that the holder accepts all liability.

Questions ensued about liability, and the opinion was given by Mr. Rey that not only did the signer not take on liability, neither did anyone else; and that because the group itself didn't exist and had no assets, liability wasn't really an issue.

He and the others did indicate several times, whenever it was brought up, that they understood that gatherings consist of individuals, that no one is in charge, that no one can represent anyone else. They seem to get that part, but they are still stuck with their administrative dilemma on how to control the use of the National Forest by groups that may have nefarious purposes, when they have to treat all users the same and if they give gatherings a waiver, they are in deep doo-doo politically.

Anyway, Mr. Rey agreed to go back to D.C. and to read, study, and think about it, and I believe him.

Responding to a specific question, the gov't reps present promised that the scouts, the cleanup crew, and so forth, would not be arrested for their participation in facilitating an environmentally appropriate, safe and healthy gatheirng. And, wonderfully enough, in response to a complaint about the FS doing advance work with local law enforcement, press, and residents, giving them incorrect information and scaring people to death, and not allowing gatherers to take part in town meetings and agency meetings about the gathering, **the regional forester gave his pledge that gatherers would be invited to take part in those meetings.** I didn't hear any acknowledgement about the need for integrity and lack of bias in their Public Information Officer, but the point was made, and I know they got it.

In other words, I believe that some of the grievances put forth were heard and responded to in a positive way. And while I recognize that there is little trust in government promises, I am guardedly optimistic: never before have "they" make concessions to "us," while recognizing that no agreements at all were possible on the part of gatherers.

While there is more, much more that was said, I will stop here, at least until I can listen to my tapes and make some notes. But I wanted to at least give an initial run-down on my take on everything. I have no doubt that others will see it differently. But I think it's important that folks know that there was a united front against permits and against the oppressive law enforcement approach that has marked the gathering for so long.

And for the very first time, ever, I have seen a change in the posture of the gov't. reps, and a willingness on the part of someone who actually has some power in the policy-making process to hear "our" side and consider making changes.

For the very first time in a long, long, time, I have hope that the roaring mouse might prevail.


From: Watering Hole (watrinh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-16 21:05:04 PST

Thank you Carla for the well-written and erudite obverances of the SF "magic RBO theatre". "Pillow", a white Japanese Silky, who was present, and heard everything spoken by all participants, explained her reflections on the entire meeting by laying two eggs on Sunday, instead of the customary one-egg-per-day regular movie she's 'regular schedule again' and one very-informed sisterchichenphamilyphriend

"P i l l o w"

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


From: Marty (mart...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-16 22:46:20 PST

Carla wrote:

> Questions ensued about liability, and the opinion was given by Mr. Rey that not only did the signer not take on liability, neither did anyone else; and that because the group itself didn't exist and had no assets, liability wasn't really an issue.

Then how can he still expect a signed permit? Is it just a matter of going through the motions?, a formality?, an arbitrary sign of submission to arbitrary authority?, a joke? It was no joke to the folks who went to prison for not signing one.

Can you re-check the tape to see if he really said this? Video would be great, and I'd like to see how it plays in the next permit ticket case.

Incidently, check the recent thread by Scottie a. about permit authorization being precluded when:

"(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)

The overseer of the Forest Service openly admits to this condition existing within Rainbow Gatherings, but still demands a signature?

Marty


From: Carla (ca...@efn.org)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 00:24:06 PST

Marty wrote:

> Carla wrote:

> > Questions ensued about liability, and the opinion was given by Mr. Rey that not only did the signer not take on liability, neither did anyone else; and that because the group itself didn't exist and had no assets,

...

I can't answer your questions. I am simply reporting what I remember him saying, not interpreting or defending it. If you want answers, you'll have to ask him. Too bad you weren't at the meeting to ask him at the time. You could try emailing him...

I'll get to the tapes when I get to the tapes, and I will check his wording at that time.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 05:01:05 PST

Marty wrote:

> Carla wrote:

> > Questions ensued about liability, and the opinion was given by Mr. Rey that not only did the signer not take on liability, neither did anyone else; and that because the group itself didn't exist and had no assets, liability wasn't really an issue.

> Then how can he still expect a signed permit?

You'd have to ask Mr. Rey. I see the whole thing as empty assurances.

> Is it just a matter of going through the motions?, a formality?, an arbitrary sign of submission to arbitrary authority?, a joke? It was no joke to the folks who went to prison for not signing one.
> Can you re-check the tape to see if he really said this? Video would be great, and I'd like to see how it plays in the next permit ticket case.

"plays"? Let's see, would a judge let it play?

> Incidently, check the recent thread by Scottie a. about permit authorization being precluded when:
> "(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)
> The overseer of the Forest Service openly admits to this condition existing within Rainbow Gatherings, but still demands a signature?

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

Mr. Rey's stated policies are a bare faced con. Mr. Rey's policies are hot air aimed at establishing trust and cannot supersede published Regulations.

"Avoid rather than oppose." - a sage

Sanity


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 10:24:50 PST

Sanity-Clause wrote:

> Marty wrote:

> > Carla wrote:

...

> cannot supersede published Regulations

He does have the power of the pen (unlike most USFS folks we have dealt with in the past) and could opt for the "alternatives clause" already established in the regs. Will he? Only time will tell.


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 10:41:27 PST

Carla wrote:

> 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 the real tone of the meeting.....sure there were sheep and lambs at that

> I told them early on in the meeting that I didn't think they were going to get someone to sign a permit this year--that I didn't see it and I didn't hear it.

This is the same impression I have gotten from both Thanksgiving Council and the Mark Rey meeting. I was moved almost to tears by the words Sue spoke on the issue of freedon to assemble, and I hope when you have time to transcribe the tapes you might be able to copy that short part verbatium, it was very moving.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 11:07:06 PST

Sailor wrote:

> > cannot supersede published Regulations

> He does have the power of the pen (unlike most USFS folks we have dealt with in the past) and could opt for the "alternatives clause" already established in the regs. Will he? Only time will tell.

"Never admit a mistake." is a bureaucratic creed Sailor. If Mr. Rey opts for the alternative clause he's as much as admitting the Pennsylvania Three were falsely convicted, and opening the door to a civil suit that could run into millions..... Not likely IMHO.

Sanity


From: bodhi (The_Psychedelic_Tour...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 11:08:47 PST

i don't have anything to add except this:

Carla wrote:

> By the time I had enough information about the meeting to even consider going, it was December 27, and I thought airline tickets would be prohibitively expensive. I went online and found an unbelievably low price on a direct flight from Eugene to San Francisco.

Next time you find yourself in that situation try:

http://groups.msn.com/Region16/winginit.msnw

might make life easier.

namaste;
bodhi


From: Terry Richards (sn00p...@bellsouth.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 11:11:16 PST

Carla wrote:

> For the very first time in a long, long, time, I have hope that the roaring mouse might prevail.

sounds like breaking in the new guy went pretty smooth

:-) ^2


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 15:50:39 PST

"Sanity-Clause" <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:4008DDA8.16694...@worldnet.att.net...

> Marty wrote:
...

> > Can you re-check the tape to see if he really said this? Video would be great, and I'd like to see how it plays in the next permit ticket case.

> "plays"? Let's see, would a judge let it play?

A Judge should let it play if the subjects knew they were being recorded. Consentual conversations can be admissable evidence.

-woodstock-


From: woodstock (thirdwavevisi...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 15:53:17 PST

"Sailor" <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4009816E.597E9...@earthlink.net...

> > I told them early on in the meeting that I didn't think they were going to get someone to sign a permit this year--that I didn't see it and I didn't hear it.

> This is the same impression I have gotten from both Thanksgiving Council and the Mark Rey meeting. I was moved almost to tears by the words Sue spoke on the issue of freedon to assemble, and I hope when you have time to transcribe the tapes you might be able to copy that short part verbatium,it was very moving.

Sound files would be more telling and there would be no "editing" without it being obvious.

-woodstock-


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-17 20:40:31 PST

woodstock wrote:

> "Sanity-Clause" <Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:4008DDA8.16694...@worldnet.att.net...
> A Judge should let it play if the subjects knew they were being recorded. Consentual conversations can be admissable evidence.
> -woodstock-

And the judge can dictate whether or not it's relevant before it's introduced ala Lance Ito.<shrug>

Sanity


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 13:04:43 PST

Sanity-Clause wrote:

...
> "Never admit a mistake." is a bureaucratic creed Sailor. If Mr. Rey opts for the alternative clause he's as much as admitting the Pennsylvania Three were falsely convicted, and opening the door to a civil suit that could run into millions..... Not likely IMHO.

You're probably correct, but keep in mind this guy is all about the money. If he can find a way to cut the USFS budget for the gatherings and garnish kudo's for himself at the same time, he might-- just might, look at alternative ways to keep a gathering with no signed permit from becoming "illegal" under the current reg. structure.


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 14:29:36 PST

Sailor wrote:

> You're probably correct, but keep in mind this guy is all about the money. If he can find a way to cut the USFS budget for the gatherings and garnish kudo's for himself at the same time, he might-- just might, look at alternative ways to keep a gathering with no signed permit from becoming "illegal" under the current reg. structure.

"Hope into one hand and [dump] in the other and see which fills faster." - Marine Corps Proverb.

I don't see how Mr. Rey can open the door to civil suits by the Pennsylvania Three and call it 'cutting the budget.' That's the problem with house of cards unconstitutional stuff, one mistake and it's lies to cover the lies to cover the lies forever and ever, unless mistakes can be admitted early on and be held harmless as human error. Once damages have occurred, the bureaucratic creed: "Never admit error!" takes over and the Gummint becomes the enemy of the people instead of their servant.....

Sanity [Sitting this year out, somewhere in the Ozarks.]


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 18:35:03 PST

This seems , within reason andd lohic, to be absolutely coorect, Sanity-Clause. Therefore, how are cases brought against 'ordinary people' - Americans =in their own Nation, be excepted from FREEDOM ?

Of Conscience, of Liberty, of Religion/Worship - of Creator/Spirit-endowed "Inalienable Rights". What means "Inalienable Rights" ?

Many have forgotten what it is like to be F R E E - American freedom and UNITY go together like love and marriage - Depend on it !

So....let's go ! Let's get yogether around this issue !

" CIRCLE UP !

Here we go again ! This time it's fer real !

http://community.webtv.net/Potassius/VERAVAGUE

http://community.webtv.net/Potassius/YinYangYuan


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 18:45:04 PST

It;s again a time to ' CIRCLE-UP THE WAGONS'

Come 'round ! Come REAL ! Come together atound Cheryl and the issue of permits to gather in groups in "Peaceable Assembly" - withou ant "Permit" regulated into place as an obstacle to the true Nature of the Great Spirit as I adore

No 'permit' necessary, truly, is there ?

Use yer sense !

N O P E R M I T (period)

Not in California !California is the "stronghold" for peoples' rights - this includes those who are "Judges" in "superior cases" in the Federal Courts in California.

Arnold Schwartznegger is the " GOVERNOR "

s t a t e of c a l i f o r n i a A " REPUBLIC "

'Nuff newz fer now .....

(to be continued)

RBJ

At-love, here and now


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 18:45:04 PST

California phamily is ' TIGHT ' !

No nonsense !

Together !

Kind !

Loving !

Sensible !

Don't tread on us !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 18:55:04 PST

This dialectuary is getting to act like Insomnia, or something as excuses for reality that make a Republic Of California citizen and American Taxpayer wonder if America is still America.

Go fer it !

Chomp on this !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 20:45:04 PST

Sanity-Clause is usually right . . .even when he criticizes me !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 20:45:04 PST

More important here is not what Mark Rey sais, but what he F E L T .

Those who talked to him in SF 'know' him now, and forever. He is trying to help.

Mark is a devent person in my beliefI 'read' him and know him now. He asssured me that "his door was always open to me". Is THAT enough to convince you that the man is sincere ?

Any disprepancies in understandings can now be 'worked-out' (understand ?)

Times are a'changing.

Keep tuned - in !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 20:45:04 PST

Right, Sanity-Clause !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 21:25:05 PST

Yes Sailor


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 22:15:05 PST

Yes. agreed -

Gary did HEYOKA DANCE

It was absolutely wonderful-

you should have seen it !

Wonderful to your very Spirit !

Grok-it !


From: Potassius (Potass...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-18 22:25:03 PST

We ARE people of 'history' , right ?


From: Landing Light (landingli...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 00:55:03 PST

We have captured his 'essence' on videotape, don;t you know ?

Wherein, he told I and I, personally, face-to-face, in I and I's face, veritably, that ' MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN TO YOU' Do you want a "conference call" ?

Yet, already, some who post here are - well, "out-of-the-loop"

Dreadful sorry, all the time

old, old, "Hangups"

This is the 2000's ;

not the 1980's -

Get with the times for a 'new' era of

W I S D O M and S A N I T Y

Listen to the Children....

Listen to the Children . . . .


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 03:37:08 PST

Potassius wrote:

> This seems , within reason andd lohic, to be absolutely coorect, Sanity-Clause. Therefore, how are cases brought against 'ordinary people' - Americans =in their own Nation, be excepted from FREEDOM ?
> Of Conscience, of Liberty, of Religion/Worship - of Creator/Spirit-endowed "Inalienable Rights". What means "Inalienable Rights" ?

It reads: "UNalienable Rights". [emphasis mine] http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html It seems the term "unalienable" was coined for the occasion. Basically I see it as meaning: "It's always bad mojo to fuck with that."

Sanity


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 03:55:20 PST

Landing Light wrote:

> We have captured his 'essence' on videotape, don;t you know ?
> Wherein, he told I and I, personally, face-to-face, in I and I's face, veritably, that ' MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN TO YOU' Do you want a "conference call" ?

"Hasta la victoria siempre!" - Che. There is no room for compromise on rights. The Permit Regulation is evidence of a Con's-piracy against rights http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pIch13.html That's a FELONY and My. Rey is a knowing party to it!

Sanity


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 03:56:38 PST

Potassius wrote:

> Sanity-Clause is usually right . . .even when he criticizes me !

Thanks?


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 04:03:46 PST

Potassius wrote:

> More important here is not what Mark Rey sais, but what he F E L T .

He is a knowing party to the illicit Permit Regulation.

> Those who talked to him in SF 'know' him now, and forever. He is trying to help.

As a member of the executive magistracy of Gummint he's spoz'ta act as a check and balance against the illicit Permit Regulation but he ain't doing nothing to strike it down. This tacit support does nothing to engender my trust. First things first: constitutionality, then I'll think about whether to have confidence in a confidence man....

Sanity


From: Head Home (Headferh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 04:50:03 PST

Yes, Sanity-Clause, dear soul, somebellies have been phukkin' with 'our' "RIGHTS" I and I have caught the 'point' !

We could be closer to 'resolve' than you realize.

P> S> I and I am NOT your brother nor 'relative' .


From: Head Home (Headferh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 04:55:03 PST

TRUST ME ~

SANITY WILL PREVAIL !


From: Head Home (Headferh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 04:55:03 PST

Ooooohhhh, Sanity -

If only you could have been there !

WISH YOU WERE HERE !


From: Sanity-Clause (Sanity-Cla...@worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 05:20:02 PST

Head Home wrote:

> TRUST ME ~

No. You'll have to do something other than flatter me to earn my trust.

> SANITY WILL PREVAIL !

All Sanity wants to do is camp in Peace. When Allah-ha* 'prevails' I rejoice.

Sanity

* Transliteration of Aramaic term for God. Aramaic was Jesus' native tongue.


From: Watering Hole (watrinh...@webtv.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 05:35:05 PST

Mark Rey DOESN'T expect a "signed Permit in California in 2004 - He has been told so, and has submitted to an "inevitable" not-signed year -

Gawd help him !


From: Sailor (x...@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 10:32:27 PST

Potassius wrote:

> More important here is not what Mark Rey sais, but what he F E L T .
> Those who talked to him in SF 'know' him now, and forever. He is trying to help.
...

Let's get real here, Mark Rey is a whore who sells his soul to the highest bidder. He did it when he was a lobbyist for the timber industry and there's no reason to believe he won't do the same thing in his current job. He doesn't give a rat's ass about some hippies in the woods, all he wants is to cut the budget for the event to put a feather in his own hat.


From: gary stubbs (rainbowcrystalkitc...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Meeting with Mark Rey (Was: SF Powwow, etc.)
Date: 2004-01-19 18:38:12 PST

Sailor <x...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<400C2247.6F1AE...@earthlink.net>...

> Let's get real here, Mark Rey is a whore who sells his soul to the highest bidder. He did it when he was a lobbyist for the timber industry and there's no reason to believe he won't do the same thing in his current job. He doesn't give a rat's ass about some hippies in the woods, all he wants is to cut the budget for the event to put a feather in his own hat.

doesnt happen offen and I know it galls us both but once again..I have to agree with you sailor...however ....he does need to make it work somehow this summer....he even told us in that meeting that since its an election year that they "neeed it to go smoothly"...and likwise hey despreatly need to reduce the leo budget for the gatheing,....georgies running out of money for his little blitz krieg in the middle east and needs those leo dollars to buy himself one more brand spannking newpretty little smart bomb...so while I agree that he doesnt give a rats about the hiipes in the forest...or even the damn forest itself but he does have great pressure from about to make it work...somehow...knowing this ...we must realise that we can negociate from strength...because we dont need a permit...we dont need todo anything to comodate them....but they have the great need to accomodate us and "make it woork"...so this year...an election year...we're in the cat bird seat...and we can dictate to them ( at least to some measure)...so let them sign the damn permitthem selfs...or issue it without our requesting one or without our even acknowledgeing it....if they refuse to accomadate us ..then we just go on..we gather...they have to spend money that they can ill afford to spend....congress gets pissed at the forest serivce becuase they had been ordered to work with us and "make it work"... they must not "fail" this year....... and remeber this gathering will be covered by alot of press....much more press then in prievious years ...and the spot light will be burning bright...they have to "make it work...and we must not give in... this is the time and place in our recent rainbow history to make the stand ...stand frim and make our goverment listen to its people and acknowledge our right to gather in the forests that we as citizens own

 

Next Part

Previous Part

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