It's now possible to have your home taken away...

[Guest]

Court cases like this one detail how today's government supports the rights of land developers and franchises over that of the Lower-Middle Class American.

Through the creation of religious sanctuaries, it is possible to protect yourself against the abuse of Imminent Domain.

If a minister, ie--the sole owner and employee of a nonprofit that is funded on donations by the surrounding community--uses his nonprofit to rent or mortgage a property, that property is considered a religious sanctuary and therefore unsiezable, un-invadable according to your 1st Amendment (United States) or 18th Article (United Nations) Rights.

Tradition states that anyone declaring sanctuary is allowed up to 38 days of
Sanctuary--that is the right (and rite) for being a part of any religion.

With that 38 days, local religious leaders can set up any leadership
structure and/or defense strategy they need to in order to defend their
rights against the oppression of authoritarian regimes.

Becoming a minister is as easy as going to the ULC website at
http://www.ulc.org and after you obtain a 501 status http://www.irs.gov you can use the status to apply for grants and collect enough donations to rent or buy any property the nonprofit wishes to.

If you go to http://www.thc-ministry.net you can even get a minister status
that makes it legal to smoke weed.

You can purchase various ministry startup kits at places like
http://www.en2.com/ and http://www.startchurch.com/ or you can go to my website where all of this information is supplied for free:
http://members.cox.net/pateticus/

Your rights are being trampled on.

Do you have what it takes to keep it from going any further? Only you can decide.

Pateticus


SUPREMES TO PROPERTY OWNERS, 'DROP DEAD'

Jun 24, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

by staff reports
The US Supreme Court has ruled that wealthy real estate developers
working with local governments can force citizens off of their homes
and property. In the landmark case, Kelo et al v. City of New London,
a 5 to 4 vote decided that there are no limits to eminent domain.
Justice John Paul Stevens justified the decision in the majority brief
as follows, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and
long-accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of
distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has
recognized."

The Institute for Justice's Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, was quoted as saying the court's decision marks "a sad day
for the country and a sad day for the Constitution." He added that
homeowner's property rights were to be best defended now at the state
level. Yet it is unclear what impact the federal ruling will have on
state law in this area. Eight state supreme courts have ruled that
taking public land for private development is unconstitutional:
Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, South
Carolina, and Washington. Six state supreme courts have ruled
otherwise: Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, and
Connecticut.

The case before the Supreme Court developed in Connecticut where, in
March 2004, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a New London
"takings" (of private homes in a partially non-depressed area) aimed
at bringing higher tax revenues and jobs to the economically depressed
city was justifiable under "public use." The state high court employed
an expansive reading of the term. Public use can mean "public
usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general
benefit," the state high court said.

The affected homeowners argued that eminent domain under the 5th
amendment to the Constitution is be used sparingly by the government
when strategic land is needed for roads, railroads and the like.
Post-ruling, New London city managers will be allowed to confiscate
private property and land and give it over to developers in the
expectation that city coffers will swell as a result of developers'
taxes - which in turn will benefit the "larger public good." There are
plenty of arguments to muster against such a course of action. Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, who lodged an emphatic dissent reportedly wrote
the following: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be
random.The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
including large corporations and development firms."

Meanwhile, homeowners across the country must be dumbfounded by the
Supremes' decision. In New London some reportedly pledged to keep
fighting for their property and said they would refuse to leave - even
under the threat of being bulldozed. And while homeowners are still
entitled to be compensated for their loss in such cases, there is
considerable acrimony over what is considered "just."

More importantly, the Supremes' decision also lacks a logical brief
for government spending. Government's ability to plan and spend
effectively is simply assumed- or at least not at issue - in the
Supremes' majority ruling. Yet over the last half century, an
increasing number of free-market economists have quietly developed a
devastatingly coherent argument against state planning - that
society's resources are only effectively deployed by individuals
making individual decisions based on rational self interest (in the
context of a free market). Government, the argument goes, can never
duplicate this process because it can never account for all the random
variables inherent in planning large projects, and thus it is that
such efforts must inevitably mis-allocate funds. Of course, proponents
of municipal planning will point to an endless array of seemingly
successful developments that have apparently reinvigorated the local
environs. But such definitions must inevitably include some parameters
and exclude others. And who is to decide what is included and excluded
in such a definition? In truth, every definition of success that
accompanies public planning is bound to be fungible - and debatable.

The only non-controversial - or at least logically defensible -
measure of success is that which is produced by the free market itself
without coercion or undue advantage from an outside authority. Yet if
the law recognized this common-sense reality, then most, if not all,
of government funding decisions would be invalidated. Rather than go
down this path, judges in most westernized, "developed" societies
choose to build on an the assumption - increasingly being exposed as
flawed - that public planning may be pursued productively. Given the
need for intellectual coherence, it is probably naive to expect
otherwise. Yet if intellectual coherence is not rooted in reality,
then it must inevitably lead to irrational and even draconian results.

-Chris Mack is FMNN's media and technology correspondent

[Jim O'Bryan]

Brother Petty

You concept of 501C3 is so far off the mark it is laughable.

I agree about eminent domain, but for a Universal Life guy, you really are over doing it.


Jim O'Bryan
Doctorate of Theology
Universal Life Church 1969 (cost $42.00)

Founder of Obism, 1988 (cost $37.00)

Publisher
Lakewood Observer (still counting)

PS - Still use my real name.

[Guest]

You concept of 501C3 is so far off the mark it is laughable.

I've been going against cynicism like this for the past year, and it still hasn't worked.

This 501 is, literally, all I own. So far it's sustained me for more than a year and all I've had to do is make sure to stay active and in the company of other people that require access to whatever resources it can provide.

I agree about eminent domain, but for a Universal Life guy, you really are over doing it.

That was the big experiment, you understand. Regardless of how seriously anyone takes a ULC Ordination, it's still a belief system and it's still a recognized religion.

Add to that the deeply rooted traditions of Sanctuary and Monasticism...we can make a strong case against any government action under our 1st Amendment Rights.

PS - Still use my real name.

This is my real name.

Brother Petty