DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF 36 CFR 251.54(h)(1)(vii)
12. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 11 as fully incorporated herein.
13. Unless this provision is Declared unconstitutional, either on its face or applied, Defendant will continue to conduct excessive Law Enforcement activity in a manner designed to impair, chill, and otherwise intimidate participation in this First Amendment activity. Against repeated violations of First Amendment their rights Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
COUNT IIVIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
14. Plaintiffs herein reallege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 trough 13.
15. Defendants violated and impaired the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs in OR more of the following particulars:
a) By chilling and impairing their First Amendment religious freedom of expression through the unconstitutional use of Law Enforcement presence, activity; and intrusion.
b) The same a. 35(a) above with the added proviso that Law Enforcement presence and activity; was excessive and unconstitutionally directed at Plaintiffs specifically because they ware attendees/participants in this particular First Amendment activity; and not for any legitimate Law Enforcement/governmental concerns.
c) Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment right of redress of grievances was impaired by 15(a) and (b) in that the First Amendment activity; known as Rainbow Family Gatherings was singled out by Defendants for law enforcement activity in part because of the participation and ultimate success several litigations Involving Defendants, Forest Service Group Use Regulations and the First Amendment activity in own a. Rainbow Family Gatherings.
d) Plaintiff Brian Michaels was specifically singled out for criminal prosecution for his participation as attorney on behalf of individual attending the first Amendment activity known as Rainbow Gatherings, and thereby alleges specific violations of his right of redress of grievances.
e) Plaintiff Susan Bernstein was specifically singled out for criminal prosecution for her participation in the 'Welcome Home Center' of the First Amendment activity known se the 1997 Annual Rainbow Gathering, and for her participation in local 'Town Meetings' and other community work at Prineville, Oregon on behalf of the 1997 annual Rainbow Gathering in the Ochoco National Forest near Prineville, Oregon, and thereby alleges specific violations of her First Amendment Rights of speech and Association as basis for unlawful selective enforcement.
16. Plaintiffs herein allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 15.17. On or about July 1997 Defendants did without proper lawful authority intentionally and maliciously institute criminal proceedings against each Plaintiff CFR violation of 36 CFR 261.10(k), Illegally Occupying National Forest Lands without Special Use Permit authorization. Those proceedings were initiated to persecute and hinder this particular First Amendment activity, were without Constitutional authority, and was known to Defendants to be tool unlawfully used against these Plaintiffs, without any requisite legitimate governmental interest. 18 . Plaintiffs were each Cited to appear in Federal Court ( thereby placing ADAMS, them in harm's way of Court imposed Conditions of Release and furthers criminal proceedings), thus chilling not only their officer rat Amendment rights but their very security to be safe from unlawful searches and seizures of their respective persons. 19. Each plaintiff attended the 1997 Rainbow Gathering with at reset one minor Child. Plaintiff A dams with manor child under one year of age. 20. The charges were eventually dismissed with prejudice but not until Motion to Dismiss was prepared and filed on behalf of Each Plaintiff. A copy of that Motion is attached hereto as Ex 1. (Plaintiff Michaels' Motion is attached because them includes the claims of Each other Plaintiff in their respective Motion to Dismiss, plus the singular claims of Mr. Michaels.)