Re: The problem with redefining gatherings (was Re: Who will sign the permit ?? I can tell you....)

Sanity RE wrote:

The fact that a free assembly is not affiliated with or sponsored by
any group is not just an interesting feature, but its most important and
essential feature.


Wrong.  The 4th of July celibration under the Arch in St. Louis is
sponsored by the City, in honor of and in affiliation with the group
"United States of America," FREE and open to the public WITHOUT
ADMISSION FEE, there is no onus of group liability [John Doe isn't
obligated to pay if Joe Shmoe throws a rock at a windshield or starts a
fire, etc.].  The tangible distinctions between that and a rainbow
gathering are: 1- Discrimination against the Peace movement; and 2-
Public prayer for Peace v worship of war replete with war machines
dragging their racket across the sky like a seel rake.


What do you expect?  Such events are government-sponsored war rallies.
That's not what I mean by "free assembly" but as I mentioned elsewhere
it's not a well-defined concept in our language.

Permits are one way to regulate rights in such areas. 

Wrong!  Enjoying a right and exercising a privelege under license are
distinct activities.  Get it through your head Marty: "Liberty is not
license." Licenses are not for the promotion or protection of Liberty.
Look "license" up again.


It was late when I wrote that.  That statement doesn't represent my own
opinion in permit case law. See my clarification below

"Case Law" out of corrupt courts, like a fountain, can rise no higher
than its source.  If your thoughts are governed by the judiciary, who
holds the sovereignty of the US?  Even the judges of the infamous Star
Chamber Courts of England lacked the temerity, gall, and arrogant
hubris to attempt to bridle the monarch that created their high offices
(James the 1st, c. 160?).  So, are "We, the people-" served by the
courts or ruled by them?  Take your pick.

"- and the Supreme Court is the law of our land." - First Lady
Betty Ford   %~\

"Written laws are like spider's webs, and will like them only
entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful easily
break through them." ANACHARSIS {c. 600 B.C.}

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson 

I have written before about my opinions of permit case law, the court system,
the likelihood of winning, administrative law issues, etc.  That gets more
involved than what I would write in a short posting.  Even if I don't agree
with particular legal challenges, I respect their efforts as long as they
don't try to represent me in any way.

That is so much crap.  The judiciary are in on the con's piracy against
rights and have been since Texas 88 when no individual was allowed
standing to present his or her defense, and probably before then.
Having a large cluster of individuals holding hands and praying for
Peace is an embarrasment to those who preach that war is in the public
interest.  The ISSUE is political, NOT legal.


Politics played a role in initiatiing the permit scheme, but subsequently I
think the federal legal teams who wrote the permit laws, and US attorneys
were deeply involved in everything the NFS permit strategy (the infamous
"commo strategy.")  It was a coherent agency-wide propaganda strategy.
The after the fact evidence is that the smear campaign stopped after the
permit signing started.

Marty, you are playing their game, by their rules, which are subject to
change, by them, ad hoc.  Sophist-icated arguments never persuade
sophists, for they have made an art of arguing and are paid by the hour
so to do......


Maybe I failed but T tried to keep it simple and clear.  The concepts involved
are not very complicated, at least no more so than the First Amendment itself.

NOBODY REPRESENTS THE "RAINBOW FAMILY"

PS: Garrick Beck, Plunker, and the rest of the NRMT do it all the time. 

That's a different "Rainbow Family."  (The NFS replacement version.)



EVERYBODY WITH A BELLY BUTTON IS A "MEMBER"

Sez you. 

No, not me.  It's a "long-term consensus" at rainbow gatherings, although
I realize that that terminology itself may be questionable.



ANYTHING "WE" SAY OR DO IS "BY CONSENSUS"

GOT IT?

Nope, I dissent. 

That's your prerogative, since a consensus is not binding, even on those
who made it, but I'm sure you will find consistent consensus on these
issues at any rainbow gathering (unless you are present, I guess).

.