Dry Creek Campground in Lassen County. From Highway 395 go to the town of Madeline, go six miles north on Hwy 395, look for the road on the left hand (west) side of the freeway going north. If you get as far north as Likely, you've gone too far.

On the map, Dry Creek Campground Road looks like its adjacent to a larger road called Water Canyon Mountain Road.

***********************************

Rainbow Family gathering 2004: Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting

North state forests brace for Rainbow' gathering 2004
By Alex Breitler, Record Searchlight

Howdy,

According to Garrick, a meeting has been set-up for those who are interested, want to attend, and/or by choice do attend, between interested individuals and Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, and a "couple of District Rangers from California, concerning issues in regards to "Rainbow Gatherings". For those of you who have read my document Redress of Grievances, you know i have been putting in for a meeting to air issues and work things out in peace, with the Forest Service, concerning my Petitions for National Forest Access, circa 2002, and up-coming Redress of Grievances, circa 2003 i.e. Access to national forest public lands for "POPULAR" 'peaceable assembly for purposes of expression".

I have every intention of attending this meeting, which will, as far as i know, be held on "neutral ground" i.e. somewhere like the University of California, at berkeley, California, etc...

personally, what i am up for is this:

(1) folks wanting to attend, get yourself to san francisco, get help from friends... if posisible, i will do what i can to help whoeve

(2) folks who have a strong opinion, viewpoint etc.. about all this, SHOULD ATTEND... air your grievances... PLEASE... LET WHOEVER COMES PLEASE BE SEEKING SOMEWAY TO WORK THINGS OUT WITH THE FOREST SERVICE IN PEACEFUL WAYS...

(3) MEET HIPPIE HILL, JUST INSIDE GOLDEN GATE PARK, NEAR HAIGHT ASHBURY... NOON ON FRIDAY THE 9TH OF JANUARY... this spot is easy to find... please whoever intends to attend this meeting please come to this circle... communications with one another is essential... things to be discussed... RESPECT for one another, RESPECT at the meeting...

whoever has a viewpoint, please come share it at the Park, then share it with the Forest Service and Mark Rey..

for further information stay tuned... when i have some ot share i will.. this meeting has been a dream of some folks who have worked to arrange it... Jeff Kline and Garrick are two... and these persons should be thanked... for their efforts...

this is an opportunity, for individuals like myself, to make contact with Mark Rey, who attended the Gathering this year, on July 5th... i would have gladly met with him personally, "in Gathering" but i was with the crew dealing with the death of the young man, brother, who passed away late July 4th, early July 5th.

nevertheless, if you have read my document Redress. you know what i would llike to convey to Mr. Rey... that is...

"District Ranger and/or authrotized officer shall offer an alternative manner of application of 36 CFR 251 to "Annual Rainbow Gathering" and/or to other similar events." apparently, from garrick has said.. Undersecretary Mark Rey wants to talk about (operational) "issues for this upcoming Gathering" AND "work out ways to REDUCE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET BY 50%"

In my Redress you know i have re-outlined to the Forest Service something very familiar... i.e. OPERATION PLAN and if the Forest Service wants a "PERMIT, they can authorize on their own... when they are satisfied of the OPERATION PLAN, worked out "on site" between "Gatherers" and Forest Service, prefarably resource and rec folks et.... a plan, myself and thousands of others have advocated for yhears and years...

I arbitrarily am asking folks to come to "hippie Hill", in Golden Gate Park, because i know the area, and it has big trees to stand under, if necessary... and it is easily found...

I am going to be asking, to this Circle of individuals, a request for SOLIDARITY ... i.e. stand together and insist on an appropriate alternative application of the regulation...

I am requesting also there be a couple of speaker phones hooked up for those who are unable to travel but who want to listen in and/or register their viewpoints... technology should be available for this???

also, i will recording and i encourage others to record what is said etc...

RAINBOW FAMILY IS NOT ATTENDING THIS MEETING INDIVIDUALS WHO COME TO GATHERINGS WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THESE ISSUES AND MATTERS ARE, HOPEFULLY, COMING TO THIS MEETING..

NO AGREEEMENTS WILL BE BEING MADE BY RAINBOW FAMILY OR EVEN BY ANY OF THE ATTENDING INDIVIDUALS...

HOPEFULLY CERTAIN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDLELINES CONCERNING COMMUNICATIONS AND COOPERATION IS, for me the subjects of the Day....

I have advocated this meeting be announced, be open, be free etc... all things on the table...

to me, the best way to reduce law enforcement is through the "internal processes" of the Gathering are respected... i.e. Shanti Sena, Fire Watch, CALM, Front Gate, etc... [from what i hear, ""Thanksgiving Council 2003 hereby consensus by silence to carry on the family cooperations process......."]

This is what i know up till now... as of yesterday this meeting, this meeting has been confirmed...

naturally, the forest service and Agriculture dept get very concerned when ti comes to numbers... it has always been this way...

myself, i trust in the PEOPLE, and the SPIRIT - i don't believe there will be hundreds of people there, nor thousands... though all the better... move it outside somewhere if necessary... rather, i believe and i have seen, over the years, determined folks will show up... it may get to be a long meeting...

AND I WOULD HOPE EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL WHO SEEKS TO COME, PLEASE COME TO NOON FRIDAY JANUARY 9TH, HIPPIE HILL GOLDEN GATE PARK...

from what i hear, ""Thanksgiving Council 2003 hereby consensus by silence to carry on the family cooperations process......."

A couple of individuals advocated this meeting... i agree with attending the meeting; for myself as an individual it is something i have requested for many years... and at times, on different levels have met with Forest Servicwe... I have a definite viewpoint... so have many others...

folks outa attend, who advocate strong positions... to both meetings...

and folks who intend to go please network with me and others...

any folks who truly object to this meeting... outa for sure come to Hippie Hill on the 9th... and advocate your trip..

regardless, i personally will be attending this meeting... and at the end... will be "officially" filing my Redress of grievance with underSecretary of Agriclutre mark Rey.... "unofficially" i will be sending forest service and rey, a copy of my Redress for them to mull through - soon..... arrangements are forthcoming...

I would hope the Forest Service and Mr. Rey wil take this opportunity to Listen, share, work things out, and when all is said and done... Mr. Rey issues a directive as i indicate in my Redress and uses the "easy alternative"... this is my personal reasons for making this journey... "Spirit willing and the creek don't rise".... and i trust in the Spirit and the People (otherwise why be in this Creed of Gathering) so i am asking this msg go to "all points of light"... up till yesterday this was merely an "idea"... i have begun contacting folks concerning this meeting... outa respect and courtesy, and a prayer for unity i send this....

Thank you,
peace, love, and a little bit of just us
barry, plunker, montana

~~~~Restore the Earth! Restore the People! ~~~~

GARRICK BECK
January 24, 2004

Dear Jeff,

I thought I should share a few thoughts with you.

First, commendations for bringing together the people you did in San Francisco. Despite whatever remarkable views may have been expressed, and despite however far from what you may have dreamed of, that meeting was no doubt a valuable step.

Last year, in going through the permit process, there were agreements given to me and accepted by me in good faith, put in writing and spoken clearly as recorded agreements. Most of these were lived up to. In general things like the traffic, public safety, health, and environmental protection went extremely well.

But there were certain major commitments that were not kept to, and in particular these I bring up here have cost us much goodwill.

The first of these is that the Incident Command Team treated me endlessly like the only person they could go to talk to about dozens of issues they knew could only be resolved by the people working in those areas (medical, traffic, water, kitchens, etc.) Despite the Undersecretary's letter which declares bluntly that a signer attains no capacity as an officer, the IC Team put me de facto in that position.

In the same vein, the Operating Plan itself was not put together by onsite volunteers and Forest Service personnel as agreed; no, it was unilaterally prepared and delivered to me, without discussion with any onsite workers/planners/volunteers. Several problems that occurred could or would have been avoided if that operating plan had been worked out with participants.

Eventually the FS resource people began communicating directly with the people involved, and that contributed to an excellent cleanup.

From my first written contact I requested - and it was agreed - that the cleanup crew specifically would receive a letter from the Ranger District indicating that the rehab work was successfully completed, and this be given to the crew on departure.

This letter was delayed two months, and then only after repeated written, phone and faxed requests was such a letter sent, to who? To me. Not even the courtesy extended to the hundreds souls who did the hardest job of the whole Gathering, by addressing this "cleanup" letter to them. This was no mistake, not after all the discussion specifically on this point; nor for a moment do I think it was the hard-working District Ranger who determined that it just couldn't be addressed to the people who did the beautiful job.

The fourth assent was that given a legal (permitted) event and a cooperative process, we would see a reduction in law enforcement throughout the Gathering. That's not what we saw. And the reason is that the IC Team didn't believe the permit would be granted even if applied for. Why not? Because they themselves were working to invoke innapplicable Utah State Laws, in order to keep the Gathing illegal.

And they found themselves at the last with a huge posse of Special Agents, already brought in, already arranged and paid for...with a legal Gathering to attend to. And we saw people torn from their cars and searched for no reason but DWR (Driving While Rainbow); rogue officers spreading patently untrue sexual allegations that they fabricated; officers ticketing people who put down their dog's leash for a moment to shoulder their own pack, federally deputized horses peeing and pooping in kitchens, children's areas, bakeries, and the mounted officers atop them threatening arrest for "interfereing" to anyone who dared so much as speak up about this, etc.

These are what has made it impossible for me to find so much as two persons willing to come forward and follow the permit course. I approached that task last year with as much positivity and hope and deep thought and hard work as I could to make that permit process work; I felt I kept my parts of the bargain I signed.

But it is up to the people who watched it happen to decide for themselves whether this is a workable process, or to continue to try to change the way things are.

I think that if the government had addressed the various volunteers at the event regarding all the processes of the event; if the goverment had prepared the operating plan with participants; if the government had delivered the cleanup letter to the cleanup crew as promised; and if the government had shown an appropriate level of law enforcement at a lawful event, there would be a line of people ready to be the next signers.

Everyone gave me a fair chance to show how the process works, or could work. I continued thru with the process even when - along the way - there were obvious indications that Incident Command wasn't honoring agreements made by Administrative Staff. We are - for better or worse - on the road these actions have brought us to. Maybe, by the final order not to address a simple letter like the cleanup letter as agreed, the IC thought they were adding the final straw to alienating the participants from wanting to participate in the permit process, and maybe, in that, they were right.

I can only hope that intelligent minds like Regional Forester Blackwell, his administrative superiors, his staff, and those they can count on, will see some way to work this out with the real volunteers who come forward to prepare the upcoming Gathering. I think everyone is willing to work together in the field(s and hills) to make a fine Gathering. It's on the papers and in the fine print that it's more difficult.

When, briefly, I met Mark at the Gathering during the 5th of July Brunch, we spoke about a get together to talk sometime later in the fall. I do have some regrets about not attending, after helping in many ways to arrange the meeting, but the actions I've just described put me in a corner where the only way I could be sure to see the Agency talking and listening to those other than myself was by my absence. I hope no one, you especially, takes any personal offence at this, but it seemed the only way to be clear about where people really stand.

Again, I've heard many renditions of the Park Branch Library Meeting, and I know you suffered much watching it. But it was a brave thing to instigate and in the end after the catcalls subside the real value of what you did will be clear.

Garrick

*********************************
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, 2003
*********************************

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
II. THE PETITIONER
III. NATURE OF COMPLAINT
IV. REQUEST FOR "WAIVER" DUE TO "RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL/CULTURAL HARDSHIP"
V. PROPOSED WAIVER: "PROGRESSIVE MELLOW GROUND"
VI. STEPS OF "ALTERNATIVE" PROCESS
VII. SUGGESTED "WAIVER" IS WITHIN CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF "RAINBOW GATHERINGS"
VIII. SUGGESTED "WAIVER" WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
IX. GRIEVANCES TO BE REDRESSED
X. GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO "ORGANIZING PROCESSES" OF "RELIGIOUS" ASSEMBLY" and/or PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, ASSOCIATIONS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL i.e."RAINBOW GATHERINGS".
XI. HOBSON'S CHOICE: THE "FICTIONAL" PERMIT
XII. "PERMITS" ILLEGALLY APPLIED TO "RAINBOW
XIII. ACCORDING TO "RAINBOW GATHERING PROCESS"
XIV. PERMIT SIGNER AS "PAPER CHIEF"
XV. FOREST SERVICE GAVE GARRICK BECK ‘WAIVERS';EXERCISED "FAVORITISM"
XVI. "WAIVER" INCLUDED G.BECK'S "INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT" STATUS:
XVII. SPACE RESERVATION:
XVIII. SOME FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE AND RECREATION "ON GROUND" KEEP AGREEMENTS
XIX. RESOURCE AND RECREATION SPEECH AND ACTIONS "LACKED INTEGRITY"
XX. FAILURE OF FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE AND RECREATION PERSONNEL TO KEEP AGREEMENTS
XXI. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF G. BECK'S "APPLICATION/PERMIT SIGNING"
XXII. NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF "PAPER CHIEF"
XXIII. INCIDENT COMMANDER DEMANDS MEETINGS ONLY WITH G.BECK PRESENT, AT G.BECK CAMPSITE CONCERNING "RAINBOW GATHERING" ISSUES.
XXIV. G. BECK'S "VALID", "LEGAL" APPLICATION, PERMIT SIGNED UNDER PROTEST = UNDER DURESS
XXV. INCIDENT COMMAND AGAINST "RAINBOW GATHERERS" WANTING TO "GOVERN AND MANAGE" "RAINBOW GATHERINGS"; WHOSE "SOAPBOX" IS THIS ANYWAY?
XXVI "HECKLER'S VETO":
XXVII. STATEMENT OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST INCIDENT COMMAND et.al., and/or USFS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AT THE "ANNUAL GATHERING OF THE TRIBES" IN UTAH, 2003 - PART 2
XXVIII. ROADBLOCKS
XXIX. EXCESSIVE PRESENCE - THREATENING OR HOSTILE DEMEANOR OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TOWARDS CITIZENS, INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITIES.
XXX. GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT, ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE OF CITIZENS. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS (LEI)
XXXI. SURVEILLANCE OF PETITIONER ADAMS:
XXXII. USE OF INTERNATIONAL WEBSITE FOR SURVEILLANCE OF U.S. CITIZEN ENGAGED IN FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY
XXXIII. OTHER LEO FOREST SERVICE LEO PROGRAMS, PLANS:
XXXIV. ON THE OTHER HAND - SOME POSITIVE "VIBES" CONCERNING SOME LEOs
XXXVI. WITNESSED INCIDENT COMMAND "COMPELLED FLAG SALUTE"
XXXVII. WITNESSED FURTHER DISRESPECT OF EXPRESSION,PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY
XXXVIII. LEGAL BASIS: JUSTIFICATION FOR EQUAL PROTECTION
XL. PATRIOT ACT AND "RAINBOW GATHERING"
XLI. FOREST SERVICE "DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN"
XLII. FEDERAL MAGISTRATE, "RAINBOW COURT:
XLIV. "RAINBOW GATHERINGS" AS "EMERGENCY SUPPORT":
XLV. “POPULAR ASSEMBLY” OR “GROUP EVENT”
XLVII. FOREST SERVICE, PLEASE!
XLIII. "RAINBOW GATHERINGS" AS THEATRE, ART, GAMES:
XLIV. "RAINBOW GATHERINGS" AS "EMERGENCY SUPPORT":
XLV. “POPULAR ASSEMBLY” OR “GROUP EVENT”
XLVI FOREST SERVICE MUST MAKE UP ITS MIND:
XLVII. FOREST SERVICE, PLEASE!
XLVIII. "EASY ALTERNATIVE
LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPENSE
ATTACHMENT S, SECTION - MEETINGS CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT

United States Department of Agriculture: UnderSecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, USFS Chief Dale Bosworth, Director Dave Holland, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Resources Forest Service, USDA, (RHWR) Staff, (2720), Mail Stop 1125, Washington, DC 20250–1125 or to , Dave Ferrell, Deputy Director, Law Enforcement and Investigation,

Lynn Bidlack, Region 4, Special Use coordinator, Tom Tidwell, Region 4, Forest Supervisor, Steve Ryberg, District Ranger, Elizabeth Close, Bert Kulesza

Donna Grosz, Region 5, Special Use Coordinator Malcolm Jowers, National Noncommercial Group Use Coordinator Special Agent Incident Commander "Gathering of the Tribes 2003" i.e. "2003 Utah Rainbow Gathering", and to whom it may concern in Forest Service, etc.

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, 2003

Howdy,

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

1. This document is a formal "Petition for Redress of Grievances". This is a Petition for the repeal, amendment or "alternative" application of U.S. Forest Service 'Noncommercial Group Use' regulations (36 CFR 251.54), on the factual, legal, and spiritual grounds stated herein; It is presented pursuant to Title 5 USC §553(e), 42 USC Sec. 1983, Chap 21, 01/05/99, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A), also 7 CFR 15, Sec. 15.3 and calls for remedies in accord with procedural rules governing the receipt, consideration and disposition of petitions under these authorities. This petition addresses a unique set of inequitable circumstances surrounding the Forest Service' most recent denial, in 2003, of Petitioner's request and application for access to National Forest lands for expressive and spiritual purposes; and Constitutional violations of Petitioner Adams civil rights: Creed, worship, spiritual, "religious" and/or peaceable assembly, speech/expression, petition, "pursuit of happiness", violations of First and Tenth Amendments, rights of an individual, "reserved" rights of "people" of a culture/point of view.

2. In addition, this petition also re-affirms and relates to Adams' previous "Petitions for National Forest Access", submitted May 10, 2002, to the Director of Recreation Heritage and Wilderness Resources (Bschor at that time), re: Case Number 1307243 (File Code: 1700, Route To: 2700). This earlier petition was referred to Civil Rights Investigations, where it was determined no civil rights were violated, and sent back to the Director, RHWR (now Dave Holland). Due to the unresolved issues of my earlier Petition, such as failure to provide for "National Forest Access", many of the circumstances leading to Petitioner's grievances have been perpetuated, thereby giving rise to this new but related set of grievances.

3. Recently, Oct 10 2003, Director Holland sent Adams another letter confirming that no action will be taken regarding my previous petition. However, these "issues" are still under review in Adams' case in Montana. [Note: It was Adams' original intent for the offices of the Forest Service to handle his "Petitions for National Forest Access", AND Adams would prefer Forest Service to be the agency that resolves the situations Adams addresses in this "Petition for Redress of Grievances."] See also this "Petition":

"On June 26, 2003, the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) informed you that your complaint, # 1307243, does not implicate civil rights law and therefore cannot give rise to a civil rights violation. Because OCR concluded that the issues raised in your complaint are programmatic, OCR forwarded it to this office. We have reviewed your complaint. We have determined that it has no legal basis and that most of the issues you raise have been rejected by the courts in numerous cases involving the Forest Service's noncommercial group use rule." See Director Holland's Letter to Adams, 10/10/2003, (FC 1700/2700).

4. Due to continued civil rights violations and because no action was or will be taken upon Adams previous "Petition for National Forest Access", Adams is also filing the current Petition with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Perhaps with another look at the entire situation, with more evidence included in the current Complaint, i.e., detailed list of how Government has again intruded into Adams' individual freedoms of "speech, worship, Creed, association/assembly, etc.", OCR will take another view of the situation. See Attachment A, Rights Complaint Forms i.e. USDA Civil Rights Complaint; See also "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" - Claim and Lawsuit Reporting Form, also, Data Act of 2000 - Claim, also, See also, Filed Complaint: "RE: Statement of Complaints against USFS Law Enforcement Officers at the Annual Gathering of the Tribes in Utah, 2003 - part 1" (Sept. 3, 2003).

5. Legal grounds for this petition include the United States Constitution and Supreme Court Opinions, USDA anti-discrimination rules and regulations:

"The First Amendment also guarantees the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." also "Brandenburg specifically held that "[s]statues affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action." 395 U.S. at 449 n.4.", also "The Supreme Court has also explained that the right to petition is "inseparable" from and "was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that gave us the freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble." McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 485 (1985). See White v. Lee (9th Cir., Sept. 27, 2000).

6. Petitioner Adams seeks access to national forest lands. Adams would have every hope the Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, Chief Dale Bosworth, Director RHWR, Dave Holland, LEI David Ferrell (Law Enforcement Investigations), others, to come up with the right approach to facilitate "appropriate management", of "oral or written" "Applications for Special Use" for expressive, non-commercial peaceable assemblies, of the sort, style and manner defined in this document; and provide appropriate "alternatives" to enable this applicant/others access to national forest re: 36 CFR 251.

7. Adams, so far, is unable to successfully "apply" for access to national forest for exercise of "inalienable rights" of prayer, speech, assembly, association, and "pursuit of happiness", because of the Nature of his beliefs and practices of spiritual/cultural life i.e. Creed. Specifically, for this Petition, his belief/practice of attending so-called "Rainbow Gatherings" in National Forest. Adams attends these events only as an individual, and acting as an individual i.e. in speech and expression, is unable to fulfil the ‘permit signature requirement" contained in 36 CFR 251.

"Creed" is defined as: "Confession or articles of faith; formal declaration of religious belief; any formula or confession of religious faith; a system of religious belief." See Cummings v. Weinfield, 177 Misc. 129, 30 N.Y.S. 2d 36, 38." Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition (1968), [444].

8. As is known, Adams has repeatedly been an unsuccessful ‘applicant.' Adams has been cited for violation of this regulation, concerning denial of his valid application for "Montana Gathering 2000" tried, convicted in Magistrate, appealed (lost) District Court in Montana (currently on Appeal to 9th Circuit). Adams has also appeared in Federal Civil Court in Idaho, concerning being denied an application; Adams lost in his arguments in district civil court in Idaho, 2001 - did not appeal, due to lack of evidence of Forest Service "permit scheme", other factors. Adams' valid "Application for Special Use" i.e. Notification re: attending this year's Utah Gathering 2003", was denied due to (no site listed) and permit signature requirement. See Attachment B, Adams March Application, Forest Service Denial Letter.

9. In this document, Adams cites many Grievances concerning situations in regards to "Annual Gathering of the Tribes, 2003" so-called "Annual Rainbow Gathering" etc., an event Forest Service, others, describes inaccurately, inappropriately, as "2003 National Rainbow Family of Living Light Gathering"; and some Suggested Solutions; plus Adams formally Requests a Waiver, an ‘alternative' way to "Apply for Special Use" under this Regulation. There is an available solution that would be "culturally appropriate" for this Petitioner, and for similarly situated individuals; including attendees/participants, at these so-called "Rainbow Gatherings". This Solution is a "Waiver", an "accommodation" to enable this applicant/others access an "alternative manner will allow the applicant to meet the eight evaluation criteria":

"If an alternative time, place, or manner will allow the applicant to meet the eight evaluation criteria, an authorized officer shall offer that alternative." See 36 CFR § 251, Subpart B, 36 CFR § 251.54(H)(iii) Special Uses (7–1–99 Edition).

II. THE PETITIONER

10. Since 1971, Petitioner has repeatedly sought access to National Forest lands as part of his Creed to engage in spiritual/cultural practice of "World Family Gathering" - (now) so-called "Rainbow Gathering", a "peaceable assembly for the purposes of expression" (July 1-7, main days) sponsored by "Rainbow Family Tribes" - defined as "conceptual Tribes" of all Races, Cultures, Creeds coming to a common ground in Peace. An Ideal (event) of each individual "being' inviting every other individual "being" to a "Gathering"); and a "Peace/Prayer Circle of Silence", Independence Day, Fourth of July. Throughout the years, Adams has communicated and sought cooperative relationships with numerous Forest Service, other Federal, State, County and local officials in pursuit of this practice. Petitioner has acted in good faith throughout these communications and relationships.

11. Petitioner has been cited for "FAILURE TO SIGN A PERMIT" for one of these so-called "Rainbow Gatherings" ("Montana Gathering 2000") i.e. "signs as an agent of holder" i.e. "on behalf of" other individuals/"Gatherers" without their express, explicit agreement; is currently on Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court - is currently facing $500 fine and 90 days in Federal Prison, for "probable" violation of 36 CFR 251 regulation - yet to be resolved; in review of these issues, according to Magistrate Judge, Dist. Montana, (Adams was tried/convicted related to these issues) "...Court believes Defendant has raised substantial question...", perhaps, a glimmer of justice is on the horizon. ALSO, in a recent 8th Cir.Ct. Appeals' Opinion, the Court affirmed conviction of Mr. Nenninger, an attendee at a "Gathering' based on "Rainbow Principles/Vision/Creed", on a differing citation but similar to Adams' conviction in Montana; HOWEVER, in this Opinion, is a statement, pertinent to Adams' case in Montana, concerning this Court's "constitutional" concern". See also, No. 11, G.Beck's, "Permit", on "signs as an agent of holder", G.Beck's Index, Docs. @

"Having reviewed Defendant's submissions, the Court believes Defendant has raised substantial questions that satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b). More specifically, Defendant has raised issues upon which reasonable jurists, applying applicable law, could disagree. See Mtn. for Stay of Execution of Sentencing Pending Appeal, and Brief in Support at 7-8. These issues require the Court to grant Defendant's motion for a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal." (Court's Doc. No. 113). See pg. 7-8, ORDER Staying Execution of Sentence Pending Appeal, U.S. v. Adams, Cause No. CR 01-11-GF-DWM, Carolyn S. Ostby, United States Magistrate Judge, District of Montana, 11/19/2003.

"We assume, arguendo, that if Nenninger had been convicted of refusing to sign the special-use authorization on behalf of the Rainbow Family, constitutional difficulties would confront that conviction. But Nenninger was not indicted on, prosecuted for, or convicted of this charge and therefore we need not, and do not, address his arguments concerning this charge." See 8th Cir. Ct. Opinion, U.S. (Forest service ) v. Nenninger, No. 03- 1350 (12/5/2003).



III. NATURE OF COMPLAINT

12. This Petition is concerned with obtaining EQUAL PROTECTION, "RELIGIOUS LAND USE" of national forest public lands as a forum; with regard to how the Regulation, 36 CFR 251, is APPLIED to Adams/other individuals similarly situated, attending/participating in so-called "Rainbow Gatherings". Under existing Forest Service policies concerning the "Application process for special use of national forest lands", Petitioner Adams/other individuals similarly situated - whose beliefs/practices - cultural/spiritual/political Creed precludes any basis for "legal standing" to "sign permit" per 36 CFR 251 - have been denied access to "Special Uses" of the National Forest.

13. This petitioner/similar individuals require an "alternative", a "waiver" to enable participation in this USDA program. Adams has been offered no "waiver", no "accommodation" and/or "alternative" ‘culturally non-discriminatory" manner of application/use per regulation 36 CFR 251 as to enable him as an "applicant" to access national forest/public lands for use. Other individuals have been granted "waivers", "alternative manner of application" by the Forest Service to facilitate similar "Special Uses" of National Forest lands similar in nature to the self-same so-called ‘Rainbow Gatherings" where Adams/other individuals attend/participate; issues at hand.

14. Petitioner maintains United States Forest Service, in the person of John Twiss, Malcolm Jowers, and others of the "2003 Rainbow Gathering" National Incident Management Team and/or "Incident Command Study Team" et. al., named and unnamed, etc., each acting individually, and in their official capacities as Forest Service employees, knowingly APPLIED Regulation 36 CFR 251 in such a way as to deliberately and systematically "intrude upon internal processes, speech, expression, ceremony, worship, petition" to "ALTER the Essence/Nature of the Peace Expression" known as "2003 Annual Rainbow Family Gathering". Such Gatherings are traditional "peaceable assemblies for the purposes of expression", held annually since 1972 on National Forest, public land, on and around July 1-7.

15. Forest Service, officially, and through its agents, did seek to inhibit, prohibit, alter, and/or hinder the Free Speech, Peaceable Assembly, Petition, and Spiritual/Religious/Political/Petition observances of Gathering Attendees in "pursuit of happiness". In so doing, the Forest Service violated Civil Rights of each and every individual attendee, AND in particular, the Rights of this Petitioner, Adams; and/or inhibited, sought to alter the nature etc., of Adams' personal Speech/expression, Worship, Right of ("religious") Assembly, "pursuit of happiness", attendance and/or participation in "2003 Rainbow Gathering". AS SUCH, these Agents, named and unnamed, acting individually and in their official capacities as Forest Service "Incident Command," violated Federal Laws prohibiting such discriminatory activities against what they perceive as an "unpopular group" i.e. "peaceable assembly", the so-called "Rainbow Family Gathering"; a POPULAR assembly of individuals engaged peaceably in speech, expression, petition, and worship. In a recent 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion, a definition of the word "group' was revealed as a companion to the widely used definition (among the government legal community) of "group" by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals use in Adams v. Arthur. Adams/others contend "Rainbow Gatherings" are "POPULAR peaceable assemblies for expression", NOT JUST ‘GROUP' Events.

"members of the Rainbow Family, a loosely structured group of people who gather periodically on National Forest land to pray for peace and to discuss political and environmental issues. Their gatherings have occurred at least once annually since 1972 and have become more frequent in recent years. Attendance at the weeks-long events can exceed 20,000 people." See, Black (also Adams) v. Arthur, 201 F. 3d 1120, (9th Cir. 2000), affirming, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Or. 1998)

"We see no ambiguity in the common word "group," which is usually given to mean "[a] number of persons or things regarded as forming a unity on account of any kind of mutual or common relation, or classed together on account of a certain degree of similarity. Oxford English Dictionary 887 (2d ed. 1989)." 8th Cir.Cr. Opinion, U.S. (Forest Service v. Nenninger, No. 03-1350 (12/5/2003)

"ASSEMBLY. The concourse of meeting together of a considerable number of persons at the same place. Also the persons so gathered."

"POPULAR ASSEMBLIES are those where the people meet to deliberate upon their rights, these are guaranteed by the constitution. Const. U.S. Amend. Art. 1". See Black's Law Dictionary (Rev. 4d. ed 1968) [149]. (emphasis added)

16. It should be noted that this petition is specifically concerned with how this "Application/permit process" is APPLIED, or used, with regards to individual attendees of "Rainbow Gatherings" and Petitioner Adams in particular. This is largely uncontested legal territory in the Courts.

17. In 1998, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the lead cases in these matters - nearly all the cases in all the Federal Districts use this case and the older U.S. v. Adams, Texas 1988 (also called U.S. v. "Rainbow Family Tribe", Texas 1988) made this important distinction with regard to another Complaint brought by Adams and others:

"We emphasize that no specific application of the challenged regulation is before us here. This case does not present, and we do not decide, whether the Forest Service's group permitting process has been or will be unconstitutionally applied to the Rainbow Family." See Black v. Arthur, 201 F. 3d 1120, (9th Cir. 2000), affirming, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Or. 1998).(emphasis added)

18. FOR THE RECORD - DISCLAIMER: Let it be clear in the record, that Barry Adams, speaks, acts, writes, only as an individual, exercising Natural "inalienable" and Constitutional Rights in "pursuit of happiness". Forest Service, U.S. Attorneys, various Courts have proclaimed Adams as a "member' of "Rainbow Family". In Texas 1988, Adams acting pro Se (with little legal education) defended his right to be an individual, and witnessed: "Rainbow Family Tribe", "Rainbow Family of Living Light etc." as SPIRITUAL IDEALS - a matter of his Creed, culture, religious/spiritual viewpoint as an individual i.e. a "soul" in Creation. In District Court in Oregon and in a Ninth Circuit Opinion, Adams was an appellant in this case, these courts declared:

"Appellants are members of the Rainbow Family". See Black v. Arthur (Adams v. Arthur i.e. Forest Service), 201 F. 3d 1120, (9th Cir. 2000), affirming, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (D. Or. 1998).

19. HOWEVER, Adams' Creed/philosophy is based in "Unity Principle" i.e. UNITY not Separation (into a "group" etc.). Relative to these matters, Adams' own perception is he is NOT a "member" of any group, organization, religious or otherwise, nor a "member" of any association - as Groucho Marx said: "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me for a member". Adams advocates he is just an entity in the Universe, a soul in Creation, an "individual" and/or a "member" only of Human Race/Species; Adams remains relatively anonymous as he likes it - a "brother" of all the "Human Family" AND "all our relations" i.e. all beings. See "Unity Principle", Where have All the Flower Children Gone? , book by B.Adams (c.1988), pg 102, (available via Adams - Book has been added as Attachment in various courts, petitions to FS).

20. Adams philosophy/Creed is expressed as he wrote in 1969, like:

"Wherever grass grows, wind blows, sun shines, it does so upon a natural child of God(us), a natural child of humankind and (my) natural spiritual brother or sister" - on "New JahruSalem, Mandala City for All People!"

21. FOR THE RECORD - "PERMIT WATCH": Barry Adams, with his video camera, had recorded the meeting of May 8th, 2003, in Evanston, Wyoming with Forest Service and individuals. Adams provided this video to G.Beck who, in turn, attached it to his "Application for "permit", June 15th, 2003, 4:20pm. This year, as part of a volunteer effort Adams called "Permit Watch" i.e. recorded, witnessed many interactions between G.Beck - "permit signer" and Forest Service, concerning the "permit process". Along the way Adams objected to the illegality of this "permit process". Adams intentions in these actions were to record, protest (when appropriate), and gather evidence of the so-called "permit process" as applied by Forest Service in these matters. Other than this "Redress" Adams hopes this information will "expose" the discriminatory way in which Forest Service currently applies this "permit process" to Adams/other individuals similarly situated and/or "Rainbow Gatherers".



IV. REQUEST FOR "WAIVER" DUE TO "RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL/CULTURAL HARDSHIP"

22. Based in Constitutional "inalienable rights", and Supreme Court Opinions, Adams is applying, in effect, for an "acceptable alternative", a culturally acceptable 'waiver' and/or 'accommodation" based on 'religious/spiritual hardship".

"As we noted in Smith, in circumstances in which individualized exemptions from a general requirement are available, the government "may not refuse to extend that system to cases of `religious hardship' without compelling reason." ibid. quoting Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S., at 708 (opinion of Burger, C.J.)."See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S., at 884.

"A statute burdens the free exercise of religion if it "put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs," Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981), includ-ing when, if enforced, it "results in the choice to the individ-ual of either abandoning his religious principle or facing criminal prosecution." Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 605 (1961). A substantial burden must be more than an "inconve-nience." Worldwide Church, 227 F.3d at 1121.

23. Because of the nature of Adams personal beliefs and practices, "Rainbow Creed" - a Creed that encompasses his cultural existence. In order to access National Forest in the 'Rainbow Way," Adams must either NOT use National Forest lands for "Rainbow Gathering" OR create a "fiction" - sign a permit with no legal standing to do so.

24. OR REQUEST (AND RECEIVE) AN "ALTERNATIVE", a "waiver", an "exemption', culturally appropriate/acceptable to enable Adams access. Otherwise, Adams remains in constant "friction" with Forest regulations. Therefore, Adams formally requests a "waiver' an 'alternative manner of use" i.e. 'alternative manner of application" - one culturally acceptable, to provide for access to National Forest to attend/participate in the so-called "Rainbow Family Gathering"; to enjoy "right to gather in an approved area on NFS land."

25. This "waiver" Adams is suggesting, Adams believes: "If it will work for me, it will work for others similarly situated". There are others like Adams, who regard their "inalienable" individual right to "pursuit of happiness", right to choice, right to associate and assemble, right to speech, right to worship as something mighty precious. It is a "waiver' fully in line with common sense and good forest management, in keeping with civil rights and liberties, plus it makes good budgetary cents. In a document concerning this year's Gathering in Utah, Forest Service states the case and the problem:

"While the Federal courts have consistently ruled in favor of the Forest Service for implementing the noncommercial group use regulation (NCGU), they have also ruled that under criteria established in the regulations, the Rainbow Family has the right to gather in an approved area on NFS land." See March 27, 2003, Letter from Regional Forester Jack Troyer to Forest Supervisors, re: 2003 Annual Rainbow Family Gathering - FC2720, RT(5300)

26. Forest Service has a choice in "implementing" Regulation 36 CFR 251 re: large assemblies. One way is "hard-line", with no "waiver" i.e. no "alternative' application process offered to "Gatherers" - so-called "Law Enforcement Strategy". This had led to over 20 court cases, great deal of time, expense, "criminalization' of otherwise legitimate citizens/forest users, "friction", ‘fear and apprehension" upon the part of "Gatherers" and public. And though there has been convictions, imprisonment etc., hundreds, thousands of people in small "regional" events, and larger "Annual Gatherings" continue to persevere through whatever legal hardships i.e. roadblocks, police harassment, blockades etc., necessary to come "Home' to the "Gathering", like "bees to the hive", "ants to the nest", "migratory butterflies in flight" and/or "brothers" and "sisters' to "Rainbow Gathering Reunion". Multi-generational, international, an emerging "organic culture' unable, as yet, to have clear "ingress and egress", access to national forest/public lands for a cultural "Annual Gathering". See Attachment C, FOIA, News Release: National Rainbow Family Gathering, June 4, 2003.

27. This situation could be resolved by Forest Service, developing an appropriate, non-discriminatory "manner" of "applying" 36 CFR 251 to the situation. Through "implementation" of its' so-called "Resource and Recreation Strategy" - a "Waiver' similar to my suggested 'alternative manner of use' - submitted by Mike Lohrey, Forest Service Incident Commander in 1997:

-- Alternatives; 2) ... This would take the form of managing large group activities as a RECREATION EVENT WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE. It would require establishing better working relationships with the Rainbow Family, closer coordination, and collaboration (which fits with the Chiefs emphasis). -- pg. 7 Issue; Our requirements for a signed Special use permit create an air of confrontation and anxiety, has little to do with the success, or lack thereof, of gathering management, and cost far more in litigation than it is capable in accomplishing on the ground." also -- "The objective of the Special Use Permit is to provide us with the legal teeth to ensure that the governments interests are protected. Despite the lack of a signed permit in previous gatherings, it appears that, for the most part, those objectives have been met, which means there are other ways to meet this need. Accomplishment has occurred through COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPERATING PLAN AND A RESTORATION PLAN. Thus, there appear to be viable alternatives to the permit that will meet our objectives. "

"1) DEVELOP A WAIVER for the special use permit for large groups that has demonstrated the ability to meet objectives outlined in the operating plan and restoration plan for a 5 year period. Rely on a signed operating plan/restoration plan to meet our needs to ensure that our interests are protected." "The waiver would be available to all large groups that meet the criteria, thus placing us in the position of being fair and consistent with all potential users." See "Oregon Gathering" Report: Titled: "Final Report Rainbow Family of Living Light 1997". (emphasis added)

28. All Forest Service needs to do is to apply this so-called "Resource and Recreation Strategy", develop a culturally acceptable "waiver" i.e. "alternative acceptable for applicants" i.e. for "Rainbow Gatherers" and/or for this "individual proponent" Adams/other individuals similarly situated. This "waiver" could take the form of a Process Adams describes as offering a "progressive mellow ground."



V. PROPOSED WAIVER: "PROGRESSIVE MELLOW GROUND" SUGGESTED EASY WAY TO SOLUTION:

29. Implementation of this Process could begin with UnderSecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey (as he did in June 2002 concerning these issues) and/or Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth writing a letter/directive simply stating something like this:

"District Rangers and/or other authorized personnel "shall offer an ALTERNATIVE time, place, AND MANNER" of APPLYING Regulation 36 CFR 251 to the "Annual Rainbow Gathering/Gatherers", and/or other similar events, in accordance with Resource and Recreation Strategy, per 36 CFR 251."

30. This use of an ‘alternative" could closely resemble the "management process" followed for the 2001 Earth First Rendezvous, in Wyoming i.e. Operating Plan worked out, District Ranger "authorized' i.e. "permitted" this EF "Rendezvous", once an Operating Plan was worked out with ‘anonymous" Rendezvous-ers. This "Alternative Process" is described below, with reference to "Annual Gathering":

VI. STEPS OF "ALTERNATIVE" PROCESS:

31. (1). Notification: Forest Service is notified via individual volunteer/s "orally and/or written" of impending "Rainbow Gathering" in Region and/or Forest. Individuals volunteer, "orally and/or written", to be 'Contacts' i.e. bridges of communications, not "authorizers".

(2). Mutual cooperation and communications concerning site selection For appropriate Siting, "Gatherers" select Site from among "appropriate multiple use national forest lands," i.e. non-NEPA lands. (Note: In this regard, this Year 2003, worked reasonably well).

(3). After Attendees select Site, Forest then works with attendees/participants i.e. "Gatherers" to develop an Operating Plan inclusive of a Rehabilitation/Cleanup/Restoration plan.

(4). Once Operating Plan, (includes health, public safety, fire, evacuation cooperative plans) is worked out with "Gatherers" to the satisfaction of District Ranger, other authorized officers, Forest Service then unilaterally "authorizes" the "Gathering" i.e. via 'Permit' and/OR authorization. Forest Service presents 'authorization' to a body of individuals within the "Gathering" gathered as "Rainbow Family Tribal Council", July 1, Noon, Main Circle. If there are problems, these are addressed through communications and cooperation with individuals, informal circles/councils.

(5). Operating Plan is worked out similarly to the Way/manner in which the Utah State, Summit County Health officials worked out the Health Plan for "Annual Gathering, Utah, 2003" i.e. health officials worked informally with various individuals, various "crews" i.e. kitchens, other "Function/work" crews i.e. Front Gate, Parking, Shuttle, Road, Shanti Sena, CALM and/or with various informal Circles/councils. This is also the method used by Oregon Health Authorities, 1997, "Oregon Gathering', See "Oregon Gathering, 1997", Public Health section, Report.

(6). This is also the way, "in-Gathering", District Resource personnel have always worked with "Gatherers" to resolve situations. This has been the informal "traditional" process of resolution of concerns of "Gatherers" and Forest Service since July 1972.

(7). Following a successful Cleanup/Restoration of Site, Forest Service issues Cleanup letter addressed simply to Cleanup Crew for that Year's "Annual Gathering".

VII. SUGGESTED "WAIVER" IS WITHIN CULTURAL FRAMEWORK OF "RAINBOW GATHERINGS"

32. Petitioner Adams is requesting a simple bureaucratic step as redress for his grievances. That is, Petitioning Forest Service to exhibit an acceptance of the "cultural" differences inherent in the Creed of "Rainbow Gatherings/Gatherers", and individuals like Adams/other individuals similarly situated, by adopting a non-discriminatory manner of applying 36 CFR 251 to Applicants/attendees, i.e. "Rainbow Gatherers"; and to "Rainbow Gatherings", such as would provide for Equal Protection under the law.

33. The suggested "alternative" consists in the use of an Operating Plan, and NO "permit signer" i.e. "paper chief". Adams calls this solution a "Progressive Mellow Ground" because it offers an equitable and balanced solution, compatible with the internal framework of "Rainbow Family Gatherings" processes as well as standard agency procedures. This framework is also one that is compatible with Adams' Creed, culture, and "pursuit of happiness." In a sense, this Solution is also "born of the Gatherings," since, as mentioned, the first "Operating Plan" for such "Rainbow Gatherings" was developed at the "Idaho Gathering, 1982", between Forest Service and individuals within the "Gathering". Note: Deputy Regional Forester Bert Kulesza, at May 8th Evanston Meeting said he was assigned to "Idaho Gathering 1982".

34. In the original 36 CFR 251 June 21, 1984, was a section, an "alternative'; for District Rangers - Operating Plan option. Adams/other "Gatherers" encouraged this "alternative". This section was removed in subsequent 36 CFR 251. It is THE ONLY VIABLE, WORKABLE, CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE "ALTERNATIVE" FOR "RAINBOW GATHERINGS" - both for Forest Service and "Rainbow Gatherers'.

VIII. SUGGESTED "WAIVER" WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF FOREST SERVICE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

35. The proposed form of Waiver is well within the framework of Regulation 36 CFR 251, and the larger management framework of Forest Service. The Noncommercial Group Use Regulation 36 CFR 251 includes language supporting the granting of waivers, such as "alternate manner of use", that will enable certain applicants to comply with the regulatory schema. This Petition is a formal Request for said "Waiver" or "Alternative", as is provided for in 36 CFR 251. Also, District Ranger Ryberg, in a communiqué, indicated the "Rainbow Gatherers' would be ‘accommodated". Adams' particular spiritual, religious, and cultural orientation is not sufficiently accommodated by certain aspects of the application and permit forms, which is the cause of inequitable treatment and undue hardship for Adams/other individuals similarly situated. Since the purpose of the Regulations is certainly not to exclude citizens on the basis of particular religious or cultural beliefs, such citizens, including Adams, should be eligible for an "alternative" as prescribed in the Regulation. Hence, the Forest Service has the option of using a 'waiver' as part of an offered "alternative manner of use" per 36 CFR 251; in this case, a waiver due to "spiritual/religious/cultural hardship".

36. Furthermore, the use of "Operating Plans" to manage events is a standard agency practice for management of "Special Uses" of National Forest system lands. Thus Adams requested Waiver is an alternative well-within the range of those reasonably available to the Forest Service. No excessive burden or expense would be assumed by the agency should it choose to apply this alternative to facilitate Adams' request.

37. Finally, the proposed Waiver offers a working solution for reducing management costs associated with the "Rainbow Gatherings" and ending discrimination against the "bows'", as I.C. Malcolm Jowers' has termed "Rainbow Gathering participants". The management approach used for this year's Gathering in Utah entailed a huge outlay of management dollars; approximately $650,000. By adopting this Waiver as a culturally appropriate alternative for managing the Gatherings, the agency would benefit from increased cooperation and a reduction of costs stemming from unnecessary conflicts currently generated by a culturally insensitive approach. See Attachment D, Letters: to Regional Foresters Troyer and Blackwell, Re: Chief's Fund, Jun 13, 2003 (File 2720, Rt. 6550). also: Regional Forester Troyer's Letter to Regional Foresters, March 24, 2003 (FC 2720, Rt. 5300); for discussion of 2003 Rainbow Family Gathering, Noncommercial Group Use Special Use Permit, and associated costs; also I.C. Jowers, e-mail re: "bows".

38. Additionally, beyond the management costs of the "Gatherings" is the continued prosecution, persecution of "Rainbow Gatherers" - people who are otherwise lawful who become "outlawed" because of their involvement in this form of Speech/expression known as "Rainbow Gathering". Federal District Court Judge in Penn., 1999, US v. Kalb, et. al., expressed some of the government's frustration and apparently unending costs - this "alternative" would likely deter further prosecutions for 36 CFR 251 violations, at least in regards to the "permit signer" issue:

"It would be impossible to estimate the judicial resources that have been expended through the years in the many legal contests between the Rainbow Family and the Forest Service. In this case alone, Forest Service personnel from Georgia and Montana had to be separated from their regular duties to come to Pennsylvania to testify, as did personnel assigned to duties in the Allegheny National Forest. Obviously, scarce resources of the Court, the Justice Department and the Forest Service have been expended to handle this case and the many others involving the Rainbow Family through the years, and always of the same issue -- refusal to apply for a permit.", See U.S. v. Kalb, Beck, and Sedlacko, Crim. No(s) 99-0074ME, 99-0075ME and 99-0076ME (W.D.Penn., 2000), District Court decision

39. As noted in Thomas v. Chicago Park District, a recent Supreme Court Opinion:

"The prophylaxis achieved by insisting upon a rigid, no-waiver application of the ordinance requirements would be far outweighed, we think, by the accompanying senseless prohibition of speech (and of other activity in the park) by organizations that fail to meet the technical requirements of the ordinance but for one reason or another pose no risk of the evils that those requirements are designed to avoid." See Thomas et al. v. Chicago Park District, No. 001249. (1/15/2002).

IX. GRIEVANCES TO BE REDRESSED:

40. These "grievances' range from Forest Service Incident Command etc., mis-information campaign directed at their own personnel AND mis-information directed toward the public, other authorities, Local and State, creating a form of "heckler's veto" toward the "Rainbow Gathering"; interference with the "organizing processes" within the "Rainbow Gathering"; violating Forest rules and regulations notably 36 CFR 251; not keeping agreements made with attendees/participants et. al.; illegal harassment and surveillance of citizens, attendees/participants and/or Adams; interference with "ingress and egress' to national forest as a forum for "Rainbow Gathering" - a form of "religious assembly"; interference with speech, expression AND worship, ceremonies, celebrations of "Rainbow Gatherers" and/or Adams/other individuals similarly situated; violations of civil rights under Civil Rights Acts, USDA anti-discrimination policies, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1995), Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000), etc..

41. During "management" of this year's Gathering, Forest Service Incident Command insisted on "applying" a general management strategy i.e. so-called "Law Enforcement Strategy", for the Gathering, that was contrary to the basic internal processes of this "2003 Gathering". As an example: beginning with planning stages in Spring 2003, and continuing throughout the Gathering, Forest Service limited its "official communications" to a single person, Garrick Beck, who agreed to "sign a permit" in conjunction with the Event.

X. GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO "ORGANIZING PROCESSES" OF "RELIGIOUS" ASSEMBLY" and/or PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, ASSOCIATIONS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL i.e."RAINBOW GATHERINGS".

42. In Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 2000, the Supreme Court found that Government had no right to enter into the internal realms/processes of an association and/or impose changes in said association. An Association of individuals, even if it is a Free Assembly of otherwise un-associated, anonymous individuals in mutual expression desiring access to national forest as a forum/soapbox, such as "Rainbow Gatherings", must have some sort of Rights within the Constitution.

"Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" like a "regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." Id., at 623. Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "[f]reedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." Ibid. The forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U. S. 1, 13 (1988). See Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, NO. 99-699, US Supreme Court (6/28/2000).

43. "Rainbow Gatherings" have specific cultural forms of structure, expression and ceremonies, often associated with, similar too, or derived from traditional "hippies." In general, internal Gathering processes are "expected" (by Gatherers) to allow everyone to have a voice if they so choose - equal access/participation/responsibility - and promote cooperative, consensual solutions for any potential conflicts. Noted further, hierarchical forms of association, and unilateral "solutions", are generally unacceptable, shunned, or avoided. To "Rainbow Gatherers', each and every individual should have equal legal "standing," i.e. be considered on an equal basis as anyone else who attends a "Rainbow Gathering' - have equal "ownership" in the mutual expression of unity known as "Rainbow Gathering". Forest Service Incident Command has a different viewpoint - See Montana Trial Testimony, Agent Robin Pogue, on "ownership":

"Agent Pogue: Generally, it's our policy to try to select folks that have probably a little bit more elevation in participation, in OWNERSHIP of the event. Certainly, we could have issued 20,000 tickets, probably, but it probably wouldn't have served much of a purpose. We tried to select people that we knew were bona fide participants." and, "Agent Pogue also explained why Adams was selected for prosecution: "The reason Mr. Adams was chosen, sir, is being familiar with the regulations, the regulations only require that the person be a participant. But given the vast numbers of people that were there, ... is that Mr. Adams was MORE THAN JUST A PARTICIPANT in the event, he was involved at a higher level in the organization of this event." See United States v. Adams No. CR-01-1 I-GF-DWM Appellant's Brief on Appeal, by Atty Willam Hooks, pg 10, May 15, 2001, Dist.Ct.Mt., Judge Molloy, No. 11-21 (emphasis added)

44. In this case, the de facto result of this so-called "Law Enforcement Strategy" was the imposition of a "hierarchical" management structure being put upon all other Gathering Participants. Non-signing participants were thus "forced" to "go through" the signing individual "if they wished to have inpute" into Forest Service management decisions. The normal internal processes of the Gathering were thus circumvented and disrupted by the imposition of a Governmental process that most Gathering participants found objectionable. Consequently, Petitioner and other non-signing gatherers were denied access to decisions concerning important logistics and details of their own cultural expression.

45. Adams/others have found no legal way for any individual or "group" of individuals to claim the right of "legal standing" to be able to Apply for and/or sign a Special Use Permit" for a "Rainbow Gathering" without creating/conspiring with the Forest Service in some sort of "fiction". Under the current Federal judicial rulings (especially as pertaining to Adams), a person cannot appeal FS denial of an application without having submitted a "valid" application, complete with "permit signer signature". See U.S v. Adams, Montana 2000 (on appeal, 9th cir.), and Adams v. US Forest Service, Idaho, 2001.

XI. HOBSON'S CHOICE: THE "FICTIONAL" PERMIT

46. June 21, 1984, the first 36 CFR 251 was instituted by Forest Service. After several court cases where previous forms of this Regulation were found un-Constitutional. In 1995, Forest Service instituted the current form of 36 CFR 251, with the "permit signature requirement". Before 1984, there were "camping permits".

47. Through the many years of "Gatherings", Forest Service has issued many "fictional" "permits" and "authorizations" to individuals, often recruited or coerced to sign "applications" outside of the Gathering. These permits have all been "illegally applied" to these ‘Rainbow Gatherings" with one exception; at "Idaho Gathering" in 1982 a Forest Service unilaterally issued a "Permit" to "Rainbow Family Tribal Council," a forum for a body of individuals within the "Rainbow Gatherers."

48. [Note: No "Gatherer" "blocked" "consensus" on "Operating Plan", signed by ‘Rainbow Family Tribal Council" by an anonymous signer - it was as a result of this "Operating Plan" that said "Permit" was issued by Forest Service.]

49. There have been a number of persons who have signed a "permit' for a "Rainbow Gathering" - All of these "permits' were signed by "self-designated" individuals who had no "legal standing"; many of these "permits' have the name of "Holder" in some individual's name and/or in the name of some other ‘group" NOT "Rainbow Family Tribe etc." and/or "Rainbow Gathering".

50. "Hobson' Choice" consists of a situation: without a "permit" individual/s who attends a "Gathering" of 75 or more persons is liable for criminal trespass. OR an individual can commit "fiction" by stating to the Forest Service their ability to "sign a permit on behalf of" "Rainbow Gatherers". This is also criminal, because in order to sign a "permit" for a "Gathering" a person must have some "legal standing" i.e. legal permission to act "on behalf of" other individuals who attend; signing without "legal standing" constitutes "fiction" i.e. fraud and is in violation of 18 USC 1001. However, Forest Service "conspires" with these ‘permit signers" in ‘creating" a "fiction"; and through the process of "validating" these ‘permits" as legal, exonerate the individual who signs. Forest Service through this ‘arbitrary and capricious" "validation" commit criminal actions, conspiracy to "fiction" and/or violations of civil liberties of "Rainbow Gatherers" who attend "Gatherings" where these ‘fictional' "permits" are imposed. According to the Forest Service:

"D. The signature requirement is a necessary and ancillary part of the noncommercial group use regulation. "FIRST, "by signing a special use authorization on behalf of the group, the agent or representative gives the authorization legal effect and subjects the group to the authorization's terms and conditions." "The SECOND INTEREST served by the signature requirement is deterring intentional false statements to the Forest Service which might cause an erroneous denial or grant of an authorization application." "36 C.F.R. §§ 251.54(e)(1), 251.54(e)(2)(i)(AE). See Adams v. Forest Service, Dist.Ct.Oregon, 1997 (97-1798-HA) Govt.- Motion to Dismiss All Counts -- pg, 28, 29, 30

"18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) criminalizes i.e. "makes it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United States any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction. Anyone knowingly or willfully makes or uses any false writing shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

51. Individuals have signed "permits" for "Rainbow Gatherings" with no "legal standing", and whether they speak/write the truth i.e. "do not represent anyone else" etc., regardless the Forest Service has accepted these signatures as "valid"; all the while denying "Applications" from persons like Adams who is truthful in his "Applications" concerning the fact he has no "legal standing" to "sign permit".

XII. "PERMITS" ILLEGALLY APPLIED TO "RAINBOW GATHERINGS"

52. Forest Service has issued "permits" since 1972. First one was a ‘camping permit" in 1976, for "(1st) Montana Gathering", three "permits" have been issued since advent of current 36 CFR 251, 1995:

53. Permitted "Rainbow Gatherings": Forest Service accepted Applications and/or unilaterally issued camping permits for: Montana - 1976, New Mexico - 1977, Oregon - 1978, Arizona - 1979 (all signed by "self designated" individuals with no agreement from other attendees), West Virginia - 1980 (signed by some folks at "Gathering", "under protest"), "First Idaho" - 1982, Forest Service and "Gatherers" worked out "Operating Plan", FS unilaterally issued camping permit. Also a separate ‘permit" was granted to an individual, for another "Site" near the "Gathering" . The intent of the Forest Service was "Rainbow Gathering" (already on a "Site") should move, "Gatherers" resisted, remained - later on, this other "permit" (issued to an individual) was rescinded.

54. Under 36 CFR 251, "permits", all signed by "self-designated" persons with no "legal standing", have no legal right to do so, examples: "Second Missouri" - 1996 (permit applied/issued in Wisconsin, Region 9 H.Q.s.): "Rainbow Gathering Site" re-assigned to "Church of Composters and Composers etc.". signer "Kind Bud"), "Second Oregon" - 1997, (applied for by individual ("under duress") leaving "Gathering", signed in Portland, Oregon, miles from "Gathering");

XIII. ACCORDING TO "RAINBOW GATHERING PROCESS":

55. IF any person wants to be a "permit signer," i.e. ‘paper chief", for the "Rainbow Gatherers", that individual would, then, have to appear "at Gathering" sometime during July 1-7, any year, Main Noon Circle, i.e. "Rainbow Family Tribal Council" - a forum for a body of individuals within the Gathering - to call for CONSENSUS i.e. an agreement from all present in this Circle. Then, even IF consensus was reached at this Circle/council i.e. Soapbox or forum for sharing viewpoints, the requesting individual still would have to go around to every other individual, from every "kitchen", encampment and place within the "Rainbow Gathering", to request and receive ‘consensus'; i.e. every person would have to agree individually to someone signing a "permit" (on each individual's "behalf" i.e. agree ‘signer" to be agent) before said "permit" could be considered "valid" for that particular whole "Rainbow Gathering".

56. To my knowledge, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has ever sought or received "consensus" i.e. permission, from "Annual Rainbow Gatherers" to sign a permit for "Rainbow Gathering"; therefore any supposed "permit" "signed" for a "Rainbow Gathering" has been signed illegally. Although it must be noted in West Virginia, 1980, a "permit" was circulated and signed "under protest" by a number of "Gatherers" (after shots were fired at "Gatherers" and (in remembrance) two women were murdered, civil rights violated, in West Virginia, traveling to the "Gathering" - according to West Virginia authorities, still unsolved murders).

XIV. PERMIT SIGNER AS "PAPER CHIEF"

57. FOR THE RECORD: despite my objections, Adams wants to thank Garrick Beck for being the person to Apply for and receive a "Permit" this year. Adams understands from G.Beck's speech and actions G. Beck applied and signed as an act of Peace, he called "Progressive Middle Ground" and/also as a "social and scientific experiment", in order to established what he called "traditional process of applying and signing"; and so that he could attend "Rainbow Family Gathering." Adams appreciates G. Beck did so in the OPEN, where it could be witnessed, and objected to, by Adams and others similarly situated. Garrick knew (and supported) Adams would be attending with the intention of recording any interactions between Forest Service and him i.e. meetings, re: "Permit Watch"; ALSO Adams would be objecting to the Forest Service violating my civil rights and/or the civil rights of all attendees through this "permit scheme'; Garrick also knew Adams would be sharing this information on July 1st, Main Circle, Noon Council "in Gathering" to other interested "Gatherers" etc.; also, Adams would be using whatever collected information to address these issues in Petition to the Forest Service and/or the Public.

58. [Note: for the entire list of documents Garrick has collected re: this situation, See Index of Documents . In this document re: G.Beck's documents, Adams will cite See G.Beck @ prop1 - incidentally Prop1 is for Proposition One - WorldWide BAN ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS!]

59. It must be noted that it was the fact that G. Beck entered a WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY, which gave Petitioner and other individuals similarly situated the opportunity to witness and LEGALLY OBJECT at nearly every step of the "Application/Permit Process". By way of this waiver of confidentiality, Petitioner was able to Record via "Fair Witness" Video, Audio, etc., this "Authorization Process", and many of the public interactions between G. Beck and Forest Service, in an action called "Permit Watch". Witnessing this 'authorization process" has never been accomplished before, along with objecting, recording. Petitioner has no doubt that he would not be receiving the depth of FOIA, in these matters, if G. Beck had not signed said "Waiver of Confidentiality". See G.Beck docs @ .

60. As noted, this year Garrick Beck, who also has been identified in court/government documents as a "Rainbow Family member", signed an application and permit , "as an individual proponent" FOR ANOTHER "GROUP" i.e. "Individuals Assembling For Expressive Activity And Meditation For Peace". While Mr. Beck specified that he did so only on his own behalf, as an individual - NOT "on behalf of", or "as agent" of "Rainbow Family" or ‘Rainbow Gathering" or "Rainbow Gatherers" i.e. attendees - this G.Beck's permit was nevertheless "APPLIED" to the "Gathering" and "Gathering Participants" AS IF Garrick had signed for "National Rainbow Family of Living Light Gathering", as Incident Command inaccurately defines "Rainbow Gathering."

61. HipStorical Note: In the ‘Ways" (i.e. customs) of the "Rainbow Gathering", individual/s free speech rights are supported. Garrick had a firm political position i.e. "Progressive Middle Ground". Garrick also was involved i.e. volunteered, in the entire "Rainbow Gathering" Process, i.e. stages of "Gathering", Scouting, Spring Circle, appeared, communicated his position at July 1st Noon, Main Circle/council, AND stayed for Clean-up/Restoration. He also agreed to act as a ‘Contact" (every single "Gatherer", who communicates with Forest service and/or Health and/or other authorities is a "contact' - announced or not). See G.Beck's docs. @ for "Progressive Middle Ground".

62. As Adams and others expressed, in their viewpoint, at the Evanston meeting, May 8th: Garrick is an individual engaged in a peaceful act of speech, and carried out through words and actions; and as an individual he has a right to his beliefs and actions, as long as his actions/speech don't discriminate against and/or don't inhibit Adams/other individuals in the exercise of similarly situated rights and/or deny Adams/others "inalienable rights" under the Constitution.

63. Regardless of assurances made by the Forest Service (and UnderSecretary Rey's letter), by limiting communications and "authority" to a single individual from within an otherwise "consensual" association, the government essentially designated G.Beck i.e. "paper chief" and tried to elevate G.Beck's position to that of "chief", "leader', and/or "representative or agent" of "Rainbow Gathering" (despite G.Beck's objections to the contrary). To most "Rainbow Gatherers", regardless of Forest Service claims, a "permit signer" is perceived as a "self-proclaimed leader" or "agent," which is contrary to the norms of "Gathering Culture" and hence objectionable. Much social struggle "in Gathering", and legal struggle has taken place because of this circumstance.

64. Over the years, the FS has used every 'trick' in the book in order to 'manipulate' or 'force' an adoption, within the "Rainbow Gathering" 'customs" or "ways", of a "paper chief', who in turn, becomes a form of "walkin' boss" for Forest Service i.e. does the bidding of the Forest Service. This is an unwarranted intrusion into the 'organizing/political processes' of this "associative assembly". Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey addressed this issue in his letter of 2002, by stating that a "permit signer" could be a mere "contact" rather than a "legal agent". However, this distinction was in effect undermined by Forest Service strategy of limiting "official communications" to the designated signer. This restricted access to agency decision makers effectively "converted" an ordinary "contact" into a de facto agent, by granting such person exclusive access to agency decisions with regard to the Assembly. See UnderSecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey letter, June 2002.

65. Since 1972, Forest Service, for what they call "better management" has been trying to force "Rainbow Gatherings" into submitting a LIST of certain persons who the Forest Service can interact with, a "list" of ONLY a few, certain individuals. These individuals would be the "contacts" who would convey to the rest of the "Gathering peoples" the Forest Service management goals, objectives and/or these "few, certain contacts" would also help the Forest Service in their Law Enforcement goals, objectives.

66. Instead of these individuals becoming a "communication bridge" between Forest Service and "Gatherers", these "permit signers" i.e. ‘paper chiefs" become a type of "walkin' boss" (lackey carrying out the bidding of Forest Service). Forest Service wants ONLY a few persons to deal with concerning these "Gatherings'; "faces" Forest Service recognizes, persons who "get along well" with Forest Service; and persons who will stick to the subjects the Forest Service wants to communicate NOT other subjects like the ones addressed in this Redress.

67. To achieve this purpose, to be able to "govern and manage" the "Rainbow Gatherings" through ONLY A FEW individuals APPROVED by the Forest Service, for issuing Forest Service management directives to the "Gatherers" etc., is a "false dream", a "lazy" form of management and will not work with these "Gatherings".

68. [Note: some smaller "regional' "Gatherings" sponsored and "permits" signed for, by individuals/"groups" - "self-designated" without other ‘attendees" permission - operate similar to the "Annual Rainbow Gatherings" but the "Annual Gathering" is a unique, original event and operates in its own ways and manner.]

69. Forest Service acknowledges the existence of the "Rainbow Tribal Council", as a forum for communications with the "Entity" consisting of the "People who Gather" i.e. "Rainbow Gathering". Incident Commander Jowers, via phone, spoke during the meeting in Evanston, May 8th, quote: "with a legal permit, the two entities should get along better." See also Attachment E, FOIA docs., referring to "Council".

70. At this point, Forest Service main tactic/strategy is to force a "paper chief', a "contact" who will sign as an "agent" (self-designated or not) AND this person can sign up as an individual or as a "group', as long as on the line listed a name is inserted, "fiction" or fact i.e. "group" is real or not -- AND, as in this case, this year, ANY NAME can be used AND Forest Service still will "validate" said "Application/Permit" signing; at the same time Forest Service calls this "signing for the "Rainbow". Then this person/s become the MAIN person/s for Forest Service to speak with concerning management issues i.e. Law enforcement, and "operation plans etc.". This person becomes a "tool" for use by Incident Command to circumvent internal "Gathering process", disenfranchise all but a "chosen" few persons (chosen by Forest Service) from having any responsibility and/or input into situations and/or "agreements", made with "permit signer" and/or accepted by "permit signer"; through this "permit signer" Incident Command de facto "governs and manages" the event, as if it is a Forest Service event i.e. like a major fire.

71. This works most effectively when someone who "signs" is a known, strong personality, knowledgeable speaker, defined viewpoint, long-time "Gatherer" like Garrick Beck. To implement use of this "tool" as a "lever" against the "Rainbows" "governing and managing" their own event/expression, Forest Service inserted the "permit signature requirement", in the latest versions of 36 CFR 251. As a result, regardless of what they agree to; or no matter how much Forest Service say the "signer' is NOT a Forest Service "listed" "CHIEF" for "Rainbow", nevertheless, this year, Forest Service did its strongest move to make G.Beck their (FS) chosen "CHIEF'.

XV. FOREST SERVICE GAVE GARRICK BECK ‘WAIVERS';EXERCISED "FAVORITISM":

72. To accomplish a "legal gathering" (by Forest Service definition), Forest Service granted many "Waivers" to G. Beck, thus favoring his political and religious position over that of other "Gatherers", other "speakers" like Adams etc... This Year, 2003, as he sought to do in Michigan 2002, G. Beck acted to implement what he saw as the manner/way to work things out between the Forest Service and "Rainbow Gatherers". He called this process a "Progressive Middle Ground". His stated intentions (as expressed May 8th, Evanston Meeting, and at other times), was to set up a "traditional process", a "social and scientific experiment" that would work for future ‘Rainbow Gatherings'. In both actions and words, G. Beck advocated this "political position", which included signing a "permit".

73. CONVERSELY: In 2000, Petitioner Adams was not only DENIED ACCESS as an "individual proponent" after the Government rejected his individual application letter, he was subsequently prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for violation of 36 CFR 251, because he persevered in exercising his Expressive and Cultural practices by attending that year's Gathering. See Montana 2000, Federal Court case U.S. (Forest Service) v. Adams; Currently on Appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

74. In 2003, Adams made similar Application as an Individual, prior to G. Beck's Application and was again DENIED ACCESS for failure to designate a "signer on behalf of group." In the case of Garrick's application, he signed as "Holder": "Individuals Assembling as an Individual Garrick Beck" and was approved - this is exactly how Garrick signed his Permit, all in one sentence, with no comma. Thus Forest Service gave favoritism and waivers to G. Beck, while holding Adams in "disfavor". See G.Beck's docs @ , "Permit".

75. Adams, as Applicant, was offered NO "alternative manner;" no "waiver"; despite participating in several meetings. Adams received a Denial Letter from Region 4 and from Region 5 with NO "alternatives" offered.

76. In addition, Adams has repeatedly requested a waiver, accommodation, exemption, etc.; this year and in other years. In Adams' "Petitions for National Forest Access," 2002, and "Application for Special Use," March 2003, Adams specifically requested an "alternative" to access National Forest for expressive, spiritual, cultural activity of "Gathering"; all to no avail.

77. When Adams asked for a meeting per my application, Forest Service apparently agreed to meet with Adams and G.Beck, who had filed a "Notice of Intent to Apply", concerning his attendance/participation in "2003 Rainbow Gathering". It was Adams understanding this meeting in Evanston was to be "open" for individuals concerned with the event to attend; Adams attended and recorded this meeting. Later, from FOIA documents Adams learns that Forest Service intended to meet, if possible, ONLY with G. Beck (and maybe a few others); AND Forest Service sought to limit "petitions" by these attending individuals concerning the "permit" issue. This meeting took place on May 8th in Evanston. Apparently Adams and others were able to attend this meeting only because G. Beck "waived confidentiality" and endorsed an "open" format.

78. In effect, Forest Service conspired to deny other speakers, citizens, i.e. Adams/others concerned with permit issue, the opportunity to petition Forest Service concerning these matters, and sought to incorporate G.Beck into this "conspiracy" to silence dissent. As this communiqué from Lynn Bidlack concerning May 8th, Evanston Meeting indicates:

"When I talked with Garrick earlier in the week, I expressed our concerns to him about numerous Rainbows attending the meeting. I told him that it would not be productive if we had many people and that the PURPOSE of this meeting was to specifically look at maps, discuss the site locations the FS has proposed (by forest) and review the site locations the Rainbows propose (what they have at that point in time). It was NOT to DISCUSS/DEBATE the philosophy of PERMIT ISSUANCE. He firmly agreed and wants the same objectives for the meeting. However, he is very uncomfortable telling any of the Rainbow scouts that they can Not attend the meeting if they want to. He said that just wouldn't work with them. He will strongly stress to those attending that the purpose of the meeting will be to discuss specific site locations and to work WITH THE FS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT." (emphasis added) See E-mail, Lynn Bidlack To: Malcolm Jowers/R8/USDAFS@FSNOTES, et al. 04/2712003 07:46 PM, Subject: MEETING WITH THE RAINBOWS CONFIRMED SPACE RESERVATION".

XVI "WAIVER" INCLUDED G.BECK'S "INDIVIDUAL PROPONENT" STATUS:

79. Garrick Beck was an "individual proponent" for an event on National Forest lands. Prior to this signing, Government maintained individual proponents were unacceptable. Thus when Adams had attempted to apply for his own self, as an individual seeking to attend Gatherings in 2000 and 2001, he was informed that "that no such situation i.e. no waivers, can exist under the regulation." See, U.S. v. Adams, Fed. Dist. Mont. (2000).

"Therefore, the Rainbow Family, not Barry Adams, must apply for and receive a permit for that gathering. Barry Adams or someone else who is designated by the group must complete and sign the application and sign the permit on behalf of the group." See Dennis Bschor letter, Director, Recreation et. al. USDA Forest Service, W.O. (May 2000).

80. On June 15th when G. Beck submitted his Application, Forest Service, Region 4, Special Uses Coordinator, Lynn Bidlack stated to Beck, "We have done about all the Forest Service can do to accommodate you." (Adams acting as "permit watch", Fair Witnessed this meeting, had this video-taped).

81. Ranger Ryberg expressed, May 15, in writing, officially, FS would "accommodate" "Rainbow Family" "right to gather"; not JUST G.Beck's "right to gather". See "Rainbow Family May 15, 2003, UPDATE", Stephen Ryberg, District Ranger.

"The Forest Service will work with the Rainbow Family to ACCOMMODATE their right to gather on the National Forest subject to reasonable restrictions to provide for the health and safety of forest visitors and participants, and to minimizing adverse impacts to the environment. The Forest Service will also participate with state, county, and local agencies to coordinate law enforcement, health and safety, and public information needs."

82. On June 17th when the Permit was read aloud before Garrick signed it, Forest Service offered Beck more waivers, by crossing out specific language and altering specific wording;. FS changed Clause 11, in Part II, of the Permit, removing the words "SIGNS AS AN AGENT OF THE HOLDER AND ". The name ‘Rainbow Family etc." was removed/changed on Application, Permit, Operating Plan - this was done by Forest Service and G.Beck. All these documents were changed to be in G.Beck's name and/or Individuals Assembling as an Individual". See G. Beck's docs. @ , Application/Permit - "Individuals Assembling as an individual etc.", June 17, 2003.

83. Forest Service' acceptance of G. Beck's "name of group," "Individuals Assembling," endorsed the existence of an "entity" separate and different than "Rainbow Family". However, in practice, this was a "fiction" used to APPLY the permit to the "Rainbow Gatherers." The result was a legal situation where "officially" ONLY G. Beck was contacted and met with about Forest Service decisions and policies concerning the whole Gathering. This "PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT" transformed Garrick from "Contact" to de facto "leader", "paper chief" into de facto "decision maker".

84. G. Beck had a specific political platform, a specific form of speech and petition, which was given favor over all others. This included Forest Service support for his adding a step to application process; i.e. "Notice of intent to apply." Forest Service agreed to consider, to pass along up the line, G. Beck's suggestion of a "Application pending status", a further waiver that could have been implemented to "buy time" and avoid a unilateral Forest Service denial based on unresolved Utah State/County health concerns. See Attachment F, FOIA, re: G.Beck's "pending status". See G.Beck's docs. @ , "Pending Status".



XVII. SPACE RESERVATION:

85. According to G.Beck, at the Evanston Meeting, one of the main reasons he advocated his Progressive Middle Ground and submitted an Application and signed a Permit was for "Space Reservation" for a "site" within the National Forest system.

86. However, on June 15th, when Beck was preparing to submit his application, Incident Commander Malcolm Jowers stated clearly that more than 75 people were already occupying the area. And the 'family" i.e. "Rainbow Gatherers" were already there, and not likely to leave, "you know it, and I know it", said I.C. Jowers. Thus the area was not "open" for scheduling at the time G. Beck submitted his Application, on June 15th at 4:20pm (according to I..C. Jowers watch).

87. This was one of the main moments when Forest Service actions directly violated Adams/others "Gathered" in "Peaceable Assembly" on a "Site" i.e. "Rainbow Gathering". Specifically, by accepting G.Beck's Application as "valid", with Beck listing as number of attendees/participants thousands of people and the "site location" descriptions for G.Beck's "group" request for "reservation' matched that of the "Rainbow Gathering". Forest Service essentially "invalidated" the right of the "Rainbow Gathering' to be at this "Site", while accepting G.Beck's Application, calling it "valid", giving G.Beck the "space reservation", WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE "RAINBOW GATHERERS".

88. Normally, if a "peaceable assembly" (or other recreation event) was on a "Site" i.e. space reservation, in national forest illegally, Forest Service NOTICE would be given; if the Gathering/Gatherers did not move, citations would be issued, illegal "occupiers" would be cited and/or removed. Then "Site" would be checked for resource impact: next, if the "Site" was okayed, another event or "group" could then Apply for said "Site". In very similar circumstances, when 'illegally occupying", Adams was cited "Oregon Gathering" 1997. NOTICE was (then) given by Forest Service to "Rainbow Gatherers, etc.", to leave or be cited. NO NOTICE was given this Year in Utah, nor was an "alternative" "Site" offered to "Rainbow Gathering". An EXPRESSION IN MOTION, a "religious exercise", a "living prayer and/or petition", (in the minds and hearts of "Rainbow Gatherers"), a "forum on national forest" was 'arbitrarily and capriciously" WAS OFFICIALLY DENIED EXISTENCE i.e. "OFFERED NO ALTERNATIVE SITE", and in its place, this self-same "Site" was GRANTED for USE to G.Beck, a "lone individual", even though Forest Service Regulation 36 CFR 251 mandates Forest Service "shall offer an alternative".

89. Adams/other "Gatherers" were TOTALLY DENIED A FORUM, ACCESS TO A SITE ON NATIONAL FOREST FOR "RAINBOW GATHERING 2003", OFFICIALLY on Forest Service documents, i.e. on paper. Regardless, "on Ground" - actually on "Site" the ACTUAL "Rainbow Gathering" continued at the "Site" chosen by "Gatherers", ceremonies took place, celebrations happened, and after the "Scattering" "anonymous" volunteers stayed for Cleanup/Restoration. G.Beck's "permit" had no legal basis in fact - also very little actual effect on "Rainbow Gathering"- regardless of Forest Service statements to the contrary; despite Forest Service violations of 36 CFR 251 through this Forest Service "fictional" "validation" of an "individual proponent" Application/permit.

90. Then, on June 17th, when his Permit was officially granted, and Asst. District Ranger Tracy Hollingshead, G.Beck and others, went over the specifications for the permitted area, for G.Beck's "permit", adjustments were made to include every area where "Rainbow Gathering" was already in place and space, already "Gathered."

"Government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views." Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95-96 (1972).

91. It is clear "Rainbow Gathering" already occupied the site when it was subsequently applied for and granted to Garrick. According to Forest Service, "Rainbow Family has a right to Gather", yet they accepted G. Beck's Application for his designated "group", "Individuals Assembling", to take over the very site of an ongoing expressive Gathering.

"2. Individuals Assembling For Expressive Activity and Meditation for Peace (the holder) is hereby authorized to use, subject to the terms of this permit, National Forest System lands described in and as shown in attached Exhibit(s)B. This permit covers approximately 4,000 acres and/or n/a miles." See Part II - Permit, G.Beck, FS-2700-3b (3/98) OMB No. 0596-0082

92. During the Application and Permit meetings, Adams spoke up and said, "Individuals Assembling etc., is "Garrick's Fan Club;" by which he meant to indicate those individuals who camp with and/or support G. Beck's legal position AND "Garrick must think a lot of people are going to stop by at his campsite." This may sound like a joke, but Adams said it to remind "all parties" G.Beck wasn't acting for the "Gathering or Gatherers". At various times, Adams advocated for G.Beck to apply for ONLY his campsite; he was not willing to just Apply for a Permit for his own campsite, but rather for the entire "Site". And in his Application he states not just over 74 persons, but gives thousands as the number of Attendees at his "Site".

93. In effect, Forest Service had no right to give "Rainbow Family Gathering" Site away to any one other person, even an attendee. Legally or illegally, "Rainbow Gathering" was already there, with Malcolm and Forest Service acknowledging this fact, yet, Forest Service moved ahead and accepted G. Beck's application and issued a "permit" for the same Site. Note: The letter granting the "permit" is addressed to Mr. Garrick Beck, and grants his application; nowhere is there a mention of a "group" etc., it is plain G.Beck is the "Permit Holder', and "individual proponent" See Attachment G, FOIA, on G.Beck as "Permit Holder", see also, Ltr. "granting... application", G.Beck docs. @ .

94. G. Beck, in writing and verbally, repeatedly indicated he was acting as an "individual proponent", not representing the "Rainbow Family etc"... therefore, his claim's on the same Site i.e. "soapbox", forum, as the "Rainbow Gathering" should have been rejected, after all he wasn't signing for "Rainbow Gathering".

95. "Rainbow Family Gathering" had a "right" to be, and the "right" to reach its' "intended audience" i.e. those folks who attended the "Gathering", and should have been 'accommodated": Opinion, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, concerning right of a "speaker" "to reach the "intended audience":

"In Bay Area Peace Navy... did not leave open ample alternative means of communicating the protesters' message. 914 F.2d at 1229. We stated that "[a]n alternative is not ample if the speaker is not permitted to reach the `intended audience.' " "The First Amendment protects the right of every citizen to `reach the minds of willing listeners and to do so there must be opportunity to win their attention.' Because RWHP was left with no alternative that allowed it to reach its intended audience... application of the permit regulations also failed to satisfy the final requirement for valid First Amendment restrictions." See Bay Area Peace Navy v. U.S., 914 F.2d 1224 (9th Cir. 1990) .

96. In short, G.Beck, acting as an "individual proponent" (his own words) separated himself (accompanied by whatever individuals in support of his "position/speech"), formed a "group" ("Individuals Assembling, etc.", persons acting in expression), then "acting as an individual" G.Beck submitted an application and permit that was acceptable to Forest Service, for an area of national forest land already occupied as "space" for a "forum/soapbox" by "Rainbow Gatherers".

97. I.C. Jowers stated firmly in an e-mail:

"There is no case where a magistrate judge or district court judge ruled that an individual could be issued a noncommercial group use permit. In fact, in granting the Government's motion to dismiss in Adams v. United States, No. 4:01-cv-295 (D. Idaho Mar. 8, 2002), the court rejected this claim and ruled that the Forest Service properly denied the application submitted by Mr. Adams because it failed to state the name of the person who would sign a permit on behalf of the group." Malcolm .Jowers, NIMT, to Eliyahu Simchah, e-mail, 05/28/2003

98. Forest Service "granted" a "waiver" accepted G.Beck's application/permit for a forum/soapbox on national forest land, as "valid" then (illegally) APPLIED it to a pre-existing Peaceable Assembly, i.e., "Rainbow Gathering", on the same intended site. As an aside, the Courts have declared G.Beck as being a 'rainbow family member" (with "ownership"), he has been cited etc., See U.S. v. Kalb, Beck et. al.. HOWEVER, G.Beck declared on many occasions he was NOT acting as a "Rainbow Family member" rather, G.Beck declared he was acting "as an individual" and/or ONLY as "Individuals Assembling as an Individual", not as a "agent, representative, leader or "on behalf of" "Rainbow Family/Rainbow Gatherers" or anyone else:

"Granting waivers to favored speakers, (or more precisely, denying them to disfavored speakers) would of course be unconstitutional, but we think that this abuse must be dealt with if and when a pattern of unlawful favoritism appears, rather than by insisting upon a degree of rigidity that is found in few legal arrangements."." See Thomas et. al. v. Chicago Park District, No. 001249. 1/15/2002 .



XVIII. SOME FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE AND RECREATION "ON GROUND" KEEP AGREEMENTS

99. Resource themselves apparently were under threat from LEI for not being hard enough on "Gatherers". To the credit of Resource personnel assigned "on Site", their methods of communications and cooperation were appreciated by Adams, other attendees. Their methods did not include 'threats"; rather sound arguments based on environmental impact issues, as is desired. Through Respectful communications, "On Ground" Resource personnel became highly skilled in communicating with "Gatherers", and found a great deal of cooperation.

100. In a recent post-gathering statement to the Forest Service, G. Beck states a number of ways the Forest Service did not uphold their part of their agreements to him. In this document Adams points out there are several more. See G.Beck's, Notice of Non-compliance, G.Beck's docs. @ .



XIX. RESOURCE AND RECREATION SPEECH AND ACTIONS "LACKED INTEGRITY"

101. These folks were manipulated by LEI Incident Command, (as in years past) for purposes of acting as de facto law enforcement, to spread mistruths, false agreements, even do law enforcement surveillance, these folks efforts 'lacked integrity" at crucial moments. For example: District Ranger Ryberg's action: After the question was asked all around the circle people at the table, "anything else?" "Good-byes'" were being said, (at the May 8th Evanston meeting); Ryberg, hands Garrick off to the side, the Utah Health Permit, an action so clearly seen on the Video of the Meeting. Ryberg tells Garrick, very quietly, a few comments on this permit as something needed doing. Observing this, Adams (and Brian Michaels, another individual), asked Ranger Ryberg as to what he handed to Garrick, Ranger Ryberg responded by talking about "fire ban". [This was after all the lot of talk of cooperation, no "hidden pitfalls", open communications earlier in the meeting, etc..]

102. In Letters from Elizabeth Close and Lynn Bidlack in Forest Service concerning handing the Utah Regulations to G.Beck, FS write the Utah health permit was 'brought up" and at the meeting "discussed the Utah Health regulations". These Letters "lack integrity". G.Beck in his comments on this meeting also says Ryberg handed over this document, Quote "We received this...". Rather, Garrick received this "permit" document, later shared it with others. If it had been brought up "in meeting" it would have been a lively discussion. See Attachment J, Letters from Liz Close, Lynn Bidlack et. al., also G.Beck's comments concerning this issue. See G.Beck's docs. @ .

103. Tracy Hollingshead showing up with G.Beck' "permit" on June 17th, with the name "Rainbow Family' in place of "G.Beck/Individuals Assembling etc.", AND, the name "Rainbow Family" was on the "Operating Plan" which was to be a document worked out between Attendees and Forest Service, not unilaterally proffered to G.Beck, along with his "permit". after all the rap and many meetings on the subject. (G.Beck's "permit" had to be changed). This happened also with Clause 11, regarding "agent" status.

104. All the FOIA information sent to me is all in the name of "Rainbow Family", except for G.Beck's Application and actual "signature". In other words, in all ways possible, if Adams, and G.Beck had not "objected' to the way these documents were written "on the spot", they would not have been changed. And it is fairly obvious, until G.Beck spoke up, and even brought out his "Michigan Permit Application, 2002" (where I.C. Malcolm Jowers "crossed out" the words "as agent of" in Clause 11 and got confirmation from UnderSecretary Rey) BEFORE Tracy would make any changes.

105. According to Documents obtained FOIA, Incident Command was repeating a "falsehood" both to the public and to the District Ranger Ryberg who was informed that 2003 was first time "Rainbow Family" ever "applied" for a "permit" and that no "permits" were ever issued to "Rainbow Gatherings'. Even a cursory examination of any previous Forest Service "Gathering" Reports indicate there have been "permits" (even if "illegally applied" and/or in other "groups"/individuals names) issued by Forest Service for said "Gatherings', both for the "Annual July" and various "Regionals". See Attachment H, Letters FOIA, stating "first permit ever issued".

106. District Ranger, Forest Supervisor, Special Use co-ordinator Lynn Bidlack, etc. i.e. Resource and Recreation, joined in with Incident Command LEO's; all sought to meet ONLY WITH G.Beck, ONLY AT G.Beck's campsite, about "operational" matters concerning the "Gathering"; not just discussions concerning his "individual permit".

107. In their "Daily UpDates" - messages, public information announcements - "Individuals Assembling/G.Beck" as the "Permit Holder" was scarcely mentioned; rather, "Rainbow Family" was mentioned as being "Permit Holder". This also is well documented in their FOIA e-mails and letters from Region to Chief, also, Letters to Regional Foresters etc.. See Attachment I, FOIA Documents, Daily Updates etc..

108. Some Forest Service, particularly Resource and Recreation, staff level folks, knew they were dealing with all sorts of individual "attendees", "kitchens, and other work crews interwoven spaces, and that all the "hubbub' going on was a "Rainbow Gathering". They knew G.Beck, and knew that G.Beck WAS NOT REPRESENTING THE "RAINBOW FAMILY" and/or "Rainbow Gatherers". They understood, "Rainbows have no leaders or followers, no hierarchy, and no permit signers" YET, at the behest of Incident Command, Resource and Recreation promoted to the Public the "fiction" that "'Rainbow Family' had applied for a permit for the first time". See Attachment J, FOIA FS Documents. "Rainbow has no leaders".

109. The clean-up letter sent by Steve Ryberg is not addressed to Clean-up Crew volunteers - an anonymous crew of volunteers - rather it is addressed to G.Beck, and it is written (as if) G.Beck and his "group" "Individuals Assembling" had done "cleanup" rather than the individuals, volunteers i.e. "Rainbow Gatherers", who were/are NOT "members", NOR PART OF G.Beck's "group". Adams has been on many clean-ups of Gatherings. One of the enjoyments of the "Rainbow Gathering Experience" is one in which "Anonymous" persons, so dedicated they remain humble, and volunteer for the sake of the Earth and the People, who know or don't know these volunteers are there to help do clean-up and restoration. Many persons (nearly all) who stayed for "cleanup" were against G.Beck's "permit signing".

110. Adams personally discussed this with Steve Ryberg, in a phone call, before he wrote the letter. and Adams asked him NOT to address the letter to G.Beck or to "Individuals Assembling". Adams told him this could be a detriment to people volunteering "energy" for further "Gatherings". Though Ryberg told Adams he would respect the actual "clean-up crew", nevertheless, he disrespected these persons, and basically gave "G.Beck/Individuals Assembling etc." the clean-up credit (Note: also over the objections of G.Beck). Not only does this create problems with future clean-up crews, but it takes away from the experience some folks call 'magical", i.e. the way in which Gathering Sites are Cleaned Up and Restored... "Leave No Trace" started with "World Family Gathering" 1972, Colorado, first of what is known as "Rainbow Gathering".



XX. FAILURE OF FOREST SERVICE RESOURCE AND RECREATION PERSONNEL TO KEEP AGREEMENTS

111. Incident Command, and Special Use Co-ordinator Lynn Bidlack, others, did not keep their agreements to Adams, other attendees. In a recent post-gathering statement to the Forest Service, G. Beck states a number of ways the Forest Service did not uphold their part of their agreements to him. In this document Adams points out there are several more. See (Adams) Video, Evanston Meeting, May 8th - submitted by G.Beck with "Application", June 15th.

A. FOREST SERVICE ISSUES OPERATING PLAN, IN VIOLATION OF PRIOR AGREEMENT.

112. In the meeting on May 8th, at which Petitioner Adams was present, Forest Service representatives stated that the Operating Plan for the Gathering would be worked out on Site with Attendees, NOT as part of Garrick's Permit. Liz Close, Regional Recreation Supervisor, said it would be a "growing, flowing document". However, when G.Beck's "permit" was issued (June 17th), the Forest Service had attached an "Operating Plan" made out to the "Rainbow Family." Adams called this into question immediately and the name on the doc