Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#11
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:53 pm
I've now read the section you mentioned in Book 10 about the “Dark Brother” . I don't see where he had anything to say, specifically, about LLC’s or the Uniform Commercial Code. What he’s railing against is “anti-rationality” and its modern technocratic manifestations of supermarkets, overworked cashiers, bad food, urban high-rises, and too much pavement.

There's another chapter in Book 10 that I'd like to call your attention to, entitled "The Anti-Rationality Mortgage". This tells the story of a man named Andrei, from the city of Vladimir who buys a hectare plot at a deserted location 30km away from the city for 30,000 rubles and builds himself a simple house. It seems there's no problem with the idea of saving up 30,000 rubles to buy some land.
Greetings Jerry,

I've been slow in responding because this is our busy outdoor building season and we have much to accomplish before winter. Also I've had some technical issues getting this forum to work with my computer's and phone's security internet settings. Thank you for this question and the opportunity to clarify any confusion in my earlier post. I certainly didn't intend to associate the Dark brothers' discussion with specific reference to LLC's or Uniform Commercial Code. My words in that sentence were specifically in reference to, "the entrapments of the global commercial lifestyle". The not-so-hidden suffering in commercial lifestyle shown by the Dark brother certainly is fully built on and with the commercial lawform of the Uniform Commercial Code. The commercial lifestyle described so well in the Dark Brother's discussion is inseparable from the commercial structures that make the lifestyle possible. LLC's are one example of those.

Also, thank you for pointing out the chapter on Anti-rational Mortgages. Saving up money to buy land is what we did and the only way in our modern commercial system that land can be bought without the multiple entanglements and burdens of debt. That requires that we buy only what we can afford without debt. It requires that we begin learning to supply our own lifestyle systems rather than depend on the commercial supply of technology, food, and comforts. Its a transition that is best supported by a stable kin's domain environment free of debt.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:53 pm
But there's more going on behind the scenes. Megre says that some fifty families from among his readers have purchased hectares in that same area. How did that happen, that there were so many little plots for sale there? How did everyone agree to buy in the same place? I find myself conjecturing that there might have been some entrepreneur involved, and perhaps a subdivision process, and maybe there are agreements. I want to know more.
I cannot speak about every community in Russia but I have been in communication with some of them. The largest community in Russia was founded by a small group of people (five, I believe) who bought a large parcel of land without debt. In Russia, land is never "owned" by the people. It is leased for a period of time not to exceed 99 years, and can be renewed indefinitely each 99 years by the heirs. The cost of this lease is infinitesimal in comparison to the costs of "buying" land in America. It was described to me as an amount in the hundreds rather than tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. The young man in the chapter on Anti-Rational Mortgages bought his land for 30,000 Rubles. That converts to $423.00 in our currency, an amount he could save easily by working six months as described in the chapter. His payment went to repay the founding entrepreneurs for their original purchase of the 99 year lease plus a small amount for administration and set-up of the community opportunity. The largest Russian community, KOVCHEG has shared with me their by-laws translated into English. It is extremely clear and detailed in disclosing to the prospective community members what is being offered and what is expected in return. It's not a model I would want to use but it's an excellent model for clarity and a well thought out path. KOVCHEG is the Russian version of an organized development that is Not-for-Profit-Making (taken directly from their by-laws). Because the cost of acquiring land in Russia is so low, a majority of people buy a domain and slowly build it into a livable space of love during holidays and vacations while they continue to live and work in a nearby city. KOVCHEG, for instance, at the time I was in communication with them (7 years ago) had many more families that still lived in a city than full-time resident families.

Other communities were formed by a small group of people who pooled their savings and bought land for their dream. Some of them sell portions of their lease but others simply hold the land they leased as a core to the new community while new families buy leases adjacent to them. Some people simply moved into abandoned houses in one of the numerous abandoned villages.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:53 pm
In Vedrica's case, the group bought the land with a mortgage, but there was no intent for this to become a burden on anyone for twenty or thirty years. The idea was to quickly sell a bunch of homesites and get the mortgage paid off right away. Unfortunately that never happened, and here we are struggling with the mortgage still ten years later. I believe Megre was right to warn of the dangers of mortgages, although in my own life I've used them and paid them off successfully.
That makes total sense, Jerry, and I've never thought otherwise. I too, have used mortgages extensively to buy and build homes to live in and as investments for profit. Before coming here I had been a successful builder and landlord for 40 years. I had enough inside knowledge in the commercial nature of America's laws and lifestyle to see the conflicts and pitfalls in building a kin's domain community on that commercial platform and under the commercial controls that exist in every county of our country, Canada and Australia. America's commercial lifestyle and thought patterns relative to money are very deeply entrenched and largely in conflict with Anastasia's community Dream. Russia has also become very commercial in lifestyle but it is not yet so deeply entrenched in the thought patterns of the people through generations of focused programmed public education. The very structure of Russia's "system" allows for a more affordable transition to kin's domain community living. That's both good and bad. It's easier to transition in Russia and consequently they have taken more of the commercial government-supported lifestyle with them to their kin's domain communities. These things still must be worked out. Vladimir wrote that at one time Anastasia needed to slow down the Russian people's move to communities because they weren't yet ready. They still have problems to overcome, major ones, but they don't appear to be as severe as those we must deal with in America. I think this is visible in the story Anastasia shared for the American movement into kin's domain communities. The Billionaire story in book 8.1 showed a non-commercial way to establish communities. Of course, everyone says, "Great Story but I'm not a billionaire." Neither am I, but I have enough inside knowledge of the commercial system and its fundamental conflict with kins domain community building to know that Anastasia's Billionaire story provides key elements needed here to allow for safe transition from a commercial lifestyle and thinking to non-commercial lifestyle and thinking. In book 6, pg 230, Black Cover, she calls upon people to build their family domains near big cities and gradually change their lifestyle to one more civilized and more favorable to one's soul and physical health. We simply cannot fully walk away from the commercial lifestyle at this time.

You wrote, " It's better to have a mortgage, than to pay rent." That is true for many people within the commercial lifestyle but it looks only at two possibilities. I have lived mortgage and rent free for 7 years and I can definitely say that it's better to live free than have a mortgage or rent payments. In the true nature of law and contracts in our country, you are still a tenant with mortgaged land/property. The only real difference is that you are responsible to take care of all the maintenance yourself, the taxes, insurance, and so on. That's one reason your payments are less than rent payments. As a mortgagee you also have the option of making "improvements" and keeping the accrued value as you grow it. Home ownership in this country is a generally profit making activity. Kin's domains are absolutely a choice based on building a space of love; and love of that nature can never be sold for a profit but rather must be nurtured and passed on for love. People constantly ask us if they can sell their kin's domain (that they expect to be given for free). That is modern culture thinking and cannot support a kin's domain community.

The Vedrica example is a huge gift to American kin's domain dreamers. It makes visible the hidden anti-rational elements of our American thinking that are a severe threat to the success of kin's domain communities. It shows the fundamental conflict in Americans' relationship to money (nearly inseparable from debt) and the kin's domain dream. Of course, you and the other founders/investors of Vedrica never intended for the mortgage to become a burden, but the very structure of debt combined with the unpredictable vagaries of the market-driven economy (debt economy) places each of the participants in serious jeopardy. If you don't think so, look up the foreclosure and short-sale statistics across America and Canada. This is not a small threat and the threat is enlarged by the very fact that people moving to a kin's domain lifestyle are either wanting to not work an outside job or want to reduce the demands of an outside job to allow for the work of building their space of love. So their capacity to manage debt payments (paying three times as much as the purchase cost of the land), is even less than it is in the routine modern municipal lifestyle. I am so sorry that all of you have been through so much unpleasantness as a result of this fundamental conflict between our existing culture and our dream for a new one. But I do see that EVERYTHING brought by the dark energies (the commercial lifestyle and more) serves our new dream. It helps us to see the things that we must change and thereby supports us to expand our thought to new levels of insight and creativity that will resolve the conflicts and simultaneously grow our capacity and speed of thought. But it will require that we actually want the kin's domain lifestyle enough to let go of the commercial empowerments we are accustomed to.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#12
Hello Joyce,

I agree that it's important to learn from the Vedrica experience so far. But I'm not sure I would draw the same lessons.

The founders of Vedrica could have used their capital savings to pay for a site with full cash and no mortgage. But instead they chose to buy a much larger site, using debt. Was that choice necessarily a death sentence for the community? I would say NO, but perhaps some different policies to deal with the situation would have helped. A group with a mortgage, needs to be clear on how it's going to be paid.

The issue that you mentioned, "that people moving to a kin's domain lifestyle are either wanting to not work an outside job or want to reduce the demands of an outside job to allow for the work of building their space of love" is very real. A billionaire might be able to use a mortgage to multiply his returns. But if there's no billionaire taking on that role, the monthly payments are challenging, and especially so for those most dedicated to building the new lifestyle.

It's been difficult for Vedrica to grow for many reasons, but one issue has been a requirement for 100% of existing members to accept a new member into the LLC. Perhaps some groups would apply a different rule? What if it took a 100% vote to keep an otherwise qualified, paying member out? Or what if there was no test at all to own a piece of land at the settlement, other than the desire and ability to pay? At any rate, if a group is relying on new member sales to pay the debt, then there needs to be almost an evangelical fervor to attract those members.

You wrote:
People constantly ask us if they can sell their kin's domain (that they expect to be given for free).
Where does this idea come from, that a kin's domain ought to be free? Not from Megre, who gives the example of a young man who saves up 30,000 rubles to buy some land. Yes, land prices are higher in the USA than in rural Russia, but is that a material difference? Salaries in America are higher too. And, just as much to the point: the price of a small acreage in rural Idaho is far, far less than the price of an apartment or house in a major American city like Seattle or Portland. It's not an impossible amount for a working man to save, although it might take longer than a year or two.

In America, if a kin's domain site is going to be offered for free, it requires the services of a benefactor such as yourself or some other billionaire. Surely there's an unequal power dynamic between the benefactor or billionaire, and the beneficiary of a free kin's domain site? There is also the aspect that the settler on a free site is expected to leave behind whatever he or she creates on the land: whether it's fruit trees, improved soil fertility, or a house, or all of those? So if a kin's domain holder is in doubt about the long run, they might choose to put less effort and money into their domain, rather than more. And when people leave (which does happen, for the reasons we've discussed) their creations are left behind, to the benefit of the benefactor.

Another view is that kin's domains must be paid for, but can never be sold. Do you see how this acts as a disincentive for the serious home seeker? The kin's domain is a roach motel for money, you can check in but you can't check out. Where does Megre recommend this policy? If you buy a lot nearby, but not in the kin's domain community, you can enjoy all the spiritual benefits of owning a Space of Love, without making a commitment for yourself and all your posterity for generations to come. Which is a big deal when there are tens of thousands of dollars or more at stake.

Where you wrote:
We simply cannot fully walk away from the commercial lifestyle at this time.
That feels very true to me. Why can't a kin's domain lifestyle be started on a weekend basis, a seasonal basis, or an aspiration for the future? Many people with commercial lifestyles can afford to carry a mortgage on a dacha in the country.

At any rate, the founders and participants and LLC members at Vedrica have never had a common vision around these basic issues.

To close this post, I would like to clarify my views about a few points you've raised. You said:
The term "Real estate" does not mean land. It means the portion of one's estate (property/resources) that is associated with land. It is the property/resources held in or on the land that can be sold for profit including the dirt, rocks, minerals, water, plants, buildings, etc. Land itself can NOT be sold even in commercial law... The LLC has no commercial authority to issue land titles and any "titles" issued would therefore not hold up in a commercial court (all courts are commercial).
Many of your legal views are very astute, so it mystifies me that you would say this. Land is made of of the dirt, rocks and minerals of the earth; what else could it mean? An LLC is capable of buying title to "Land", meaning the surface of those rocks and minerals, and possibly also the right to mine those minerals and resources into the depths. The title is, as you mention, conditioned upon those rights reserved by previous owners back to the original land patent, which in Idaho's case represents an asset stolen from the indigenous Americans. But it represents a very real right to occupy the territory. And the LLC is legally authorized to seek to subdivide that land (subject to jurisdiction of the county) and to sell the subdivided pieces. In Vedrica's case, of course, the land would need to be released from the mortgage first.

Regarding the concept of jurisdictions, I watched the recommended part of the video. I disagree that the "United States" is a distinct entity from the original American republic. I also disagree with another idea that you mentioned elsewhere, that it is possible to exist in the jurisdiction of "organic law". The legal system that existed in the late 18th century has been superseded. Some aspects have been incorporated, to be sure, but the jurisdictions of today are not the same. The old system is gone, and the "original American republic" has long since ceased to exist.

And where you wrote:
This new Quantum system of self-governance has been tested, has performed and is known and recognized by what you know as "the government." You can begin researching any of these online.
My google and duck-duck-go searches have not turned up any such thing as the "new Quantum system of self-governance." The closest thing I've come to, is the Quantum Grammar invented by David Wynn Miller. Perhaps there is a related self-governance doctrine? Judging by the way you sign your name, :Joyce-M: in red font, perhaps you're a practitioner? Or am I missing something?

The idea that this system has been "tested, known and recognized" seems to be true, but not in a good way. The Wikipedia article on the topic lists nine spectacular failures, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wyn ... cted_cases. If there are any success stories, I sure couldn't find them.

Is it possible to live a life of "self-governance"? I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to own land and avoid paying property tax, I doubt that any of the legal strategies you're discussing are going to be any help. The "pure trust" system seems to be designed for income tax evasion, and it won't work for that. But perhaps it might work for some other purpose, such as safely transferring ownership from one party to another, for which one ordinarily might use a standard American revocable or irrevocable grantor trust.

I don't believe that the method of holding title, is going to effect the county's views about land use and building codes. Some aspects of these codes are beneficial for the Anastasia movement, such as rural low-density requirements which prevent suburban sprawl and help to keep land costs low. Building codes are at least partly intended to protect consumers from ramshackle, defective construction practices, structural hazards and fire hazards. I can't think of any reason why an Anastasian would want to build a dangerous, defective house, any more than anyone else would.

But there are some aspects of building codes that are problematic: one example is composting toilets, which are illegal in some jurisdictions. In America, violations of these codes are mostly detected by neighbor complaints and consumer complaints, or by banks and realtors during transactions. Low-profile acts of civil disobedience (in compliance with higher environmental law) are seldom a problem.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#13
Here's another example of someone who paid cash for their domain. In book 6, chapter 9 "A Need to Think", Megre tells us that George W. Bush left the White House in 2001 to take a month-long vacation at "his ranch, where he has a small house". Megre says that Bush treated Nature there with love, and that he took in a flow of natural information from the water, birds and wind. The implication is that somehow, Bush obtained information that saved the US from far worse terrorist attacks than the ones that actually occurred on 9/11.

The facts are that Bush paid $1.3 million for the 1,583 acre ranch in 1999, and then built a "small" 4,000 square foot limestone house with swimming pool, and a helicopter hangar that doubles as a facility for press conferences. So apparently the magic can work even if the domain is bigger than a hectare, and even if it isn't obtained for free.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#14
Greetings Jerry,
Again you bring up many excellent points that we kins domain dreamers need to be aware of and examine.
Jerry wrote: The founders of Vedrica could have used their capital savings to pay for a site with full cash and no mortgage. But instead they chose to buy a much larger site, using debt. Was that choice necessarily a death sentence for the community? I would say NO...
I couldn't say debt is necessarily a kins domain community death sentence. Without going down rabbit-holes of "theory and opinion" we can look at the actual outcome of that decision. The Vedrica community appears to be at death's door. Whether it can find enough energy or benefit to revive itself remains to be seen. So far they have not found any path to the original dream and have opted for a Court decision to force some sort of resolution or limited benefit to some members with possible terrible cost to others. The court judge will make a decision with NO knowledge or intention to protect and preserve the original dream of kins domain community. Some or all of the founders/members have abandoned their original dream or determined that it has failed for whatever reasons. As you pointed out this situation originates from multiple factors but the court case seems to be spinning around the debt/eviction/foreclosure threat issues. Based on statements from both sides of the conflict, it appears accurate and realistic to say that the debt obligation was not thought out fully to the point that it could and would be experienced as a contribution to the community's permanence, nor communicated well or spread equally to the responsibility and benefit of all participants. If this conclusion is inaccurate please share the *facts*, not theory or opinion that prove the error.

You wrote, "the monthly payments are challenging, and especially so for those most dedicated to building the new lifestyle". It appears that you have answered your point about whether or not debt is a death sentence for the community. Yes, it probably is unless a community's founders/investors can find a way to eliminate the struggle and burden that debt imposes on people trying to return their lifestyle to land-supported, from money-supported.
Jerry wrote: At any rate, the founders and participants and LLC members at Vedrica have never had a common vision around these basic issues.
Very true but I want to point out that this was not the result of a flaw in anyone's character or intentions but rather the result of mixing two incompatible thought programs, i.e., the modern relationship with legal systems and profit making being mixed up with the Vedruss ideas of harmonious living. I believe this was done semi-consciously at best. So many of our modern world concepts are accepted without question or examination. Among its many gifts to the community at large, the Vedrica demonstration will help new community founders to put in more effort to ensure that their modern world methods serve rather than diminish their dream.

Vedrica is not the first community to find themselves far from their original dream and in court to solve the conflict. The first in our country was in northern California and involved many families, several of whom lost their life savings while many others lost only a few hundred dollars. One in southern Canada, five families, collapsed with anger, bitterness and beliefs that kins domain communities can't work. Both of these efforts demonstrated unwritten agreements, impossible promises (but well-intended) that were naively believed, and failure to effectively consider the government factor. There was more but those appeared to be primary. Those bitter feelings survive to this day in some of the participants.

This brings up another point worthy of posting here. What is a "good" kins domain community? I think any kins domain community effort is good regardless of where it falls on the scale of transition or success, but I also think there is a reason why the only American story so far, of forming kins domain communities here, is about a specific model. After the billionaire story, Anastasia said, "That is no made up story, but a projection of the future. The names and locales are not important. What is important is the essence, the idea, the dream! ... then people will certainly project it's essence into the future, and many people will add their own details and infuse the projection with their own great meaning and conscious awareness." (book 8.1, pg 114 black cover). I think the essential elements shown in the story may be that the domains are given from and for love. They are given in exchange for an agreement. No provision is given for leaving since the people were paid. Even if they aren't paid for their work they are well paid by having no rent or land payments while there, and getting the benefit of others' experiences and experiments. And finally, one of my favorite quotes from that future projection gives us a powerful clue: John Heitzman said, "You don't have to be president to run the country. That's something you can do right in your own garden". If you dig deep enough into the hidden political realities, that comment begins to make complete sense.
Jerry wrote: Where does this idea come from, that a kin's domain ought to be free? Not from Megre, who gives the example of a young man who saves up 30,000 rubles to buy some land.
The idea of free kins domain land, at least in America comes from the ONLY American story so far of a kins domain community, the billionaire story. In that story land was given free from and for love but still in exchange for an agreement. Also, the idea of free land is shown in book 8.1 when young Liubumila and Radomir went to a place near one of their villages and identified and claimed their domain land. And thirdly the idea that land should be free is innate in many of us. We can feel the disharmony in commercially buying and selling that which was given freely to Man.
Jerry wrote: Another view is that kin's domains must be paid for, but can never be sold. Do you see how this acts as a disincentive for the serious home seeker? The kin's domain is a roach motel for money, you can check in but you can't check out.
I do see how that acts as a disincentive for people who are not ready to take full responsibility for their dream and their own choices that support or don't support their kins domain dream. It acts as a disincentive for people who aren't yet willing to leave the lifestyle in which value is measured by gain and preservation of profit. It acts as a disincentive for people who are willing to solve problems by abandoning love, and by controlling self and others by threat of abandonment. So those people will not find a community attractive if it does not support their "back-door" escape plan in the event that the community members don't respond to their control measures. The barring of domain sales is an excellent filter in this regard. It supports people in making the inner changes that allow them to merge with their land, nature and dream in a way that is prevented in the modern lifestyle. That very merging will prevent them from selling their domain. Once the connection is made the inner prohibition can grow as strong as it is in selling their children. I do see a problem if land is sold to members but then they are prevented from reselling. That's why we do not sell domains. I'm not a billionaire but I could afford to buy 80 acres and offer a few domains in exchange for an agreement. Like the billionaire story, our offer is made from and for love of a dream, not profit.
Jerry wrote: Land is made of of the dirt, rocks and minerals of the earth; what else could it mean?
. This is a much bigger question than you realize. In the comprehension that is supported by common language usage your question would seem logical, but NEVER assume that what you know and believe to be real is the same reality that operates in law and legalities without careful examination and verification of your assumptions. In the modern world countries "land" is not held, transferred, taxed, or managed in common language terms. In the modern US world, land is an extremely complex concept manipulated legally to the highest degree against the common man and in favor of the 'controllers' profits. Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, reprints the following quote from Land Law (2nd edition, 1988) by Peter Butt;
"Land is not restricted to the earth's surface, but extends below and above the surface. Nor is it confined to solids, but may encompass within its bounds such things as gasses and liquids. ... Ultimately .. 'land' is simply an area of three dimensional space, it's position being defined by natural or imaginary points located by reference to the earth's surface. 'Land' is NOT the fixed contents of that space. ...Land is immovable, as distinct from chattels, which are moveable; it is also, in its legal significance, indestructible. The contents of the space may be physically severed, destroyed, or consumed, but the space itself, and so the 'land', remains immutable.".

In the legal manipulations to support the purpose of commercial use and control, Real Estate Law and function is 100% based and governed from this above quoted definition of Land. My neighbor to the west sells truckloads of massive chunks of stone from his portion of the stone cliffs. He has dug up and sold huge sections of dirt as well. Yet he still 'owns' all of his 'land' having given up no part of that ownership by selling as many truckloads as he wishes of the material located within the bounds of his 'land'. Entire mountains have been removed for profit from 'land' and yet it removed no portion of the 'land' that had been purchased. To think that one understands land via common language use, but still depends fully on the legal system for holding, transfer, tax or legal management of that 'land', is akin to thinking that one understands freedom from within a thought pattern of believing the system's "notion that slavery is the highest bliss" (quote from book 8.1, pg.72, black cover). In other words it's mixing incompatible concepts without awareness of the elements that make them incompatible.

That leads me to another of your comments.
Jerry wrote: I disagree that the "United States" is a distinct entity from the original American republic. I also disagree with another idea that you mentioned elsewhere, that it is possible to exist in the jurisdiction of "organic law". The legal system that existed in the late 18th century has been superseded. Some aspects have been incorporated, to be sure, but the jurisdictions of today are not the same. The old system is gone, and the "original American republic" has long since ceased to exist.
Then you later quoted Wikipedia as your 'authority' for a legal opinion. You can disagree all you want, Jerry, but a legal 'opinion' without legal standing based on legal sources with standing in law is nothing, at least in legal forums and discussions. If one takes his comprehension of fact and reality from a third party source as heavily censored as Wikipedia, that one can only end up with information that has passed the censors, in other words, with propaganda or publicity designed to hide truth not reveal it. If your claim (or a third party source claim) regarding organic law jurisdiction were true then how do you account for the thousands of people who live free of the US governing system in open confrontation with any government agency by correctly establishing their standing under original jurisdiction? I personally know many people who have walked out of courts unscathed and unhindered by US government agency prosecutors, on that premise alone (when done properly). You can disagree that the US is not a distinct entity from the organic law jurisdiction until you examine the relevant law deeply along with the function and action of Congress. But very few will do that and the governing bodies know this. If organic law jurisdiction didn't exist, it would have no standing in court but it is quite eye opening to watch a knowledgeable man or woman walk into court with copies of the organic laws certified by the Library of Congress. That immediately becomes the law of that court when done correctly, and all statutory and code law (US jurisdiction) has no further standing in that court case. It isn't even necessary to bring the copies if one is skilled enough in the legal mechanics. The link you may have reviewed is a case in point. The group that put that juisdictional information online has experienced countless huge successes against major government agencies and quasi-government corporations simply by demanding jurisdictional authority and threatening public exposure and court action in a larger and prior jurisdiction. One may choose to wear blinders and disagree at his pleasure. He simply closes off his options by doing so. Opinion is without legal standing in any legal forum if it cannot be supported in law and in consistent demonstration.

Regarding your comments about a Quantum system of self governance, (A response supported only by Wikipedia which has no standing in any legal forum);
Jerry wrote: If there are stories, I sure couldn't find them.
I wonder if you were actually looking for success stories or stories to support your beliefs? Until one has reviewed the actual information instead of pre-digested third party censored sources, one has nothing to offer but a free standing opinion based on limited information but not on the larger reality or a large enough body of supporting facts. Sometimes even with an awareness of a large body of relevant facts one might feel they have enough information to know "what's real". That's a slippery slope to walk because reality is far more complex than is easily grasped, as Anastasia demonstrates throughout the RC series with her histories, abilities and knowledge of realities never glimpsed by most of modern day mankind. If you just want to protect yourself from being "led down a rabbit hole" I suggest you do nothing or stick with censored sources. If you are serious about expanding your awareness about the Quantum movement you can start by watching two video series by Russel-Jay:Gould. One starts with :War-Castles-~1 on Youtube and goes through 13. The second one is his Reno-Seminars (several videos). Warning: These will seriously conflict with your standard programming but before you jump to a critical position, know that nearly every claim made on those videos has been and still can be independently verified and certainly should be if one intends to opine from any solid legal standing. To expand one's awareness of reality, political or otherwise, is not an easy armchair event. It requires serious investigation and deep examination with one's own thought. The politically approved 'reality' is easy to find. The hidden but more powerful reality is well hidden and for good reason.

Quick point: Of course, LLC's can buy, hold and subdivide land and resell that land. In no version of that can an LLC 'issue' any legal form of land title to anyone. Any land title with legal standing will come only from the County after the land parcel has been sold. At that point the LLC will hold no further interest in the land parcel with the single limited exception of a possible special development contract such as a Home Owners Association which must be established within local county codes. If you disagree, please share your legal source.
Jerry wrote: I don't believe that the method of holding title, is going to effect the county's views about land use and building codes.
Without turning this into a legal seminar I'm limited in what I can offer in response to this. In our country I've personally seen three different forms of title and held two of them in my name. Courts have ruled countless times about the various forms of title and their effects. The form of title has a definite effect on the county's views about land use and building code. Apart from titles however, every county building code and zoning enforcement agency is governed by an operating code. If you know where to look you will see that it says clearly who is subject to the building and zoning codes and who is not. I've spoken more of this in another topic on this forum. You can free yourself from those code restrictions so easily if you have the courage to stand on the law and hold them to their own law. Many have successfully done so. You won't find that in Wikipedia either but the proofs abound once the blinders are removed.

A really important point to contemplate is the idea that 100% of the community members must agree in order for a new community member to join. This is commonly accepted in many kinds of intentional communities and even in some Home Owner Associations. We tried it ourselves but it's not supported anywhere in the books and we didn't like the way it played out. Even in the billionaire story, John Heitzman himself did not filter the people who responded to his advertisement, except by requiring acceptance of his agreement, which established the participants' role in the billionaire's dream. Giving members the power to accept or reject a new member is a bit like accepting or rejecting God. It doesn't feel good to me. We're at a point in our progression. that man needs to expand, instead of limit our growth potential through rejecting people who want to share our dream. It's a big growth to trust that we can expand into love great enough to accept any who want to accept our conditions (like the agreement the billionaire required).

Final point:
Jerry wrote: Is it possible to live a life of "self-governance?" I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to own land and avoid paying property tax, I doubt that any of the legal strategies you're discussing are going to be any help. The "pure trust" system seems to be designed for income tax evasion, and it won't work for that. But perhaps it might work for some other purpose, such as safely transferring ownership from one party to another, for which one ordinarily might use a standard American revocable or irrevocable grantor trust.
This paragraph is so full of opinion based on a belief in a 'taught' reality where only US jurisdiction has any and all power, without any supporting fact or broader legal knowledge, that I hardly know where to begin. Because I've already addressed most of this adequately in previous posts except the first sentence, I'll deal with only that here. From the recognition that man's thought is a force unparalleled in all of space, as Anastasia claims and as I have begun to experience, what force or limitation could possibly exist that could have any power to prevent a man from living a joyful self-governed life? Only one: A man's own thought of being limited rather than unlimited. Can a man who is certain he is limited by forces greater than himself achieve self governance? Certainly, by governing himself within the bounds of what he is willing to accept as his reality. Can a man who is certain there is no force greater than his own thought self-govern in a way that is harmonious to life and love? Certainly, because there is nothing to prevent him.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#15
Jerry wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:56 pm
Here's another example of someone who paid cash for their domain. In book 6, chapter 9 "A Need to Think", Megre tells us that George W. Bush left the White House in 2001 to take a month-long vacation at "his ranch, where he has a small house". Megre says that Bush treated Nature there with love, and that he took in a flow of natural information from the water, birds and wind. The implication is that somehow, Bush obtained information that saved the US from far worse terrorist attacks than the ones that actually occurred on 9/11.

The facts are that Bush paid $1.3 million for the 1,583 acre ranch in 1999, and then built a "small" 4,000 square foot limestone house with swimming pool, and a helicopter hangar that doubles as a facility for press conferences. So apparently the magic can work even if the domain is bigger than a hectare, and even if it isn't obtained for free.
Greetings Jerry,
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this post. I thought we were discussing community building efforts. Bush didn't build or start a community to my knowledge. Has anyone in this thread claimed that "the magic" of domain connection could only work on hectare sized plots or land received free? I certainly didn't receive my land for free and I would not trade my connection experience for life itself. But isn't that irrelevant to the discussion of the effect of debt in community building? I welcome correction if I have missed an important point.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#16
Hello :Joyce-M:,

Thank you for the ongoing discussion. Because of the litigation process, I feel that I should not comment further about the specifics of the Vedrica situation, and I cannot confirm or deny your statements. I hope I haven't said too much already.

Regarding legal matters such as jurisdictions, building codes, or the Quantum movement, you have objected to my citations of Wikipedia as a source for my views. However, items in Wikipedia are in turn backed by other sources provided by the anonymous editors. Based on that information, the actual court documents and legal citations may be traced.

You do not provide any legal citations for your views either. (That is, except for the definition of land, which is compatible with what I said, and which I wholeheartedly agree with. The rocks and minerals making up the land, are contained within survey coordinates defining their extent.) For the most part, your position seems to be based on you-tube videos, and your allegations of thousands of people living in open confrontation with US government agencies, and walking in and out of their courtrooms unscathed.

It is certainly true that government agencies do not immediately smite and destroy anyone who harbors doubts about their authority, or anyone who ever violates a building code or other regulation. But that does not make it safe to build a community or a movement, based on defiance of those codes and regulations.

Regarding community building efforts, I am advocating for the view that a Kin's Domain community could reasonably be built on the basis that Kin's Domains are bought and sold. And that in an entrepreneurial spirit, short term debt could be used to finance domains that have not yet been sold to their ultimate owners.

It seems to me that you are claiming spiritual superiority for a model in which the domains are given to each family for free. However, in our commercial system this requires a benefactor (a "billionaire" or a community minded individual such as yourself) to buy the land for cash, or perhaps acquire it by inheritance, and then give it away to newcomers. How can the movement grow, if it needs to wait for such benefactors?

If the movement is based on sale of property, then it can grow as fast as families arrive who have the necessary resources to buy a plot for their own residence. Not everyone in the USA has those resources, but many of us do. So, it seems to me that it's a good decision to build a community business plan around offering plots to newcomers for sale in exchange for US dollars.

"I do see a problem if land is sold to members but then they are prevented from reselling." Yes indeed, I'm glad you see this.

I'm not advocating for a trade up model, where families aspire to profit from their starter domain to buy a bigger one. (Although I don't see why that needs to be prohibited, either.) It is primarily after some sort of failure to connect, either with the land or with the community, that such a desire to move on will arise.

But, if a family does reach that decision that it's time to move on from a community, what right do the remaining community members have to try to prevent that? If a family has invested a significant portion of their life savings, should the community agreements insist on trapping those resources?
...reality is far more complex than is easily grasped, as Anastasia demonstrates throughout the RC series with her histories, abilities and knowledge of realities never glimpsed by most of modern day mankind.
I can understand appealing to the Megre books as a source of thoughts and inspiration. But it has always seemed obvious enough to me, that these books are fictional novels. Anastasia exists in Megre's imagination, or perhaps she is a fictionalized avatar of Olga Anatolevnya Guz. I hope it is not a requirement for Kin Domain participants, to accept Anastasia's version of history and reality as if it is simply factual? An archive of Olga Guz's reply to Megre and Anastasia may be found at this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080531060 ... u/main.php

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#17
Jerry wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:22 pm

I can understand appealing to the Megre books as a source of thoughts and inspiration. But it has always seemed obvious enough to me, that these books are fictional novels. Anastasia exists in Megre's imagination, or perhaps she is a fictionalized avatar of Olga Anatolevnya Guz. I hope it is not a requirement for Kin Domain participants, to accept Anastasia's version of history and reality as if it is simply factual? An archive of Olga Guz's reply to Megre and Anastasia may be found at this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080531060 ... u/main.php

Greetings Jerry,

Ah. Thank you for that final clarification. Much that was confusing for me in this ongoing conversation makes sense now. As Vladimir's Anastasia said, "I exist for whom I exist". She wasn't the first to use these words and neither was Olga Guz by her own statement quoting where she first read them. You and I stand in two very different positions in relation to the information Vladimir wrote.

I have been well aware of Olga Guz since 2007 and in my experience she serves the dream well in several ways. One way is that she has brought many people face to face with our background conflicting beliefs that need recognized and a choice made in order to move forward in building our individual dteams. To those who learn of her conflict with Vladimir, she can stimulate a deep discovery of their hidden beliefs and judgements relative to their kins domain dreams and themselves. For me, Olga Guz was an important step in my process of aligning my thought to the outcomes I desire and trusting that desire, in other words she stimulated a deeper awareness of myself that led to greater purification of my thought relative to the dream and myself. She has brought many into face to face encounter with the energy of doubt which can help us take greater care in bringing to awareness our own deeper motives, triggers and hidden conflicts. She certainly gave me the opportunity to expand my willingness and ability to trust my own thought and reasoning capability. She provided me an opportunity to bring my previously unrecognized inner power into greater harmony with my purpose in living. Thanks to Olga's demonstration I was able to significantly expand my conscious ability to wield my part of the unparalleled force in all of space, Man's thought. Previous to learning about her charges against Vladimir I projected a great amount of that unparalleled force away from me and into the world around me, and I perceived it as functioning against me and feared functioning against my own joy. All of that is valuable and I love Olga for her part in stimulating this expansion in my awareness and relationships. I would not change Olga Guz in a single way. She is a perfect expression of God giving those who choose it, the treasured opportunity to expand our skill at holding all the energies of the Universe within us, in the balance of perfect service to our dream! In Russia, the conflict she introduced helped to slow down the early rush to kins domain communities which Anastasia said was needed in order to give the people more time to adjust and prepare. I'm grateful for Olga Guz. My dream and my relationship to myself are stronger thanks to her. Who can say how much Vladimir's writing was influenced by other sources? I've done a great deal of writing but never wrote anything significant that was not influenced by previous experiences. In a live seminar with Leonid Sharashkin, the black cover publisher, I heard a woman ask Leonid if he thought Anastasia was real as presented in the books. I loved his honest answer. He said, "I know she is because I know the author personally and he isn't capable of coming up with that information on his own.". My answer is a little different. "I know she is real because I have direct experience of the power of her thought and mine as well." The dream has been manifesting powerfully according to Anastasia's stated plan. Olga Guz does not demonstrate that degree of power or ability in her life, nor does she have a dream anything like this. In fact, based on her court actions and interviews that I've read, she's a bit vindictive. She openly ridicules the heart of Anastasia's dream, the kins domains and the Vedruss history. Olga certainly does not share or care for the dream as I would expect if she were the source of that and as I have experienced my own dream unfolding. If she was the 'real' Anastasia of the early books there must be a strong thread of continuity between his books and hers. I can't see that. In fact I see the very opposite. Olga's life is about healing others. Anastasia's teachings are about Man learning to find his own power to heal himself. Olga has taken major steps to gain publicity and promote her healing poetry books. Anastasia promotes healing of mankind from within each Man. Olga ridicules Anastasia's relationships with the animals. Those animals and all of nature are central to Anastasia's dream of filling the earth with beautiful gardens harmonious to all of life. Olga has no dream for the future of Man other than to be healed by other people with power to heal them. I don't like that dream. I love Anastasia's rich dream of filling the earth with beautiful gardens. Olga is a beautiful woman but her life by her own words is a bit whiney, full of struggle and denial of acknowledgement that she feels is her right. Anastasia's life is the complete opposite. Olga and her followers have presented many examples of what they call 'plagerism'. Most of them are more flimsy than dust blowing by. A few of them appear to be a possibility but she offers no proof that the language originates from her. Olga is a beautiful woman but her teachings and stated purpose do not come close to the depth Anastasia presents about who we are and how we function. Olga criticizes Vladimir severely as being about money only and I'm not sure she's not right about that. He's never tried to hide that about himself. But Anastasia has brought that energy into service of her dream for Mankind and the earth. Vladimir signed a statement that the books were his own personal fiction stories. He did that to quickly end the case and move on. Faced with the situation, I might have done the same without the possibility of bringing Anastasia into court. I've wondered if this action was an attempt to force Anastasia into the public arena. I applaud Vladimir for not going there and letting people examine the facts themselves and use their own reasoning capability. I prefer that action over a long drawn out court argument. Olga Guz has served us well. I'm grateful for that. I choose to make Anastasia's dream my own. I have never found a dream of Olga's that has any hope of reconnecting Man to his Divine state and restoring any of the earth (let alone all of it) to its garden state.

On another topic, you are right that I didn't include the legal citations for my statements. I didn't think I needed to or that the thread called for it. I didn't see it as a legal instruction format which I said more than once. I saw the thread as a tremendous gift of an opportunity to the kins domain dreamers to recognize more of our nearly invisible modern thought patterns that hold conflict in place, a pattern we all need to bring into conscious service to our dreams. This thread brings to light better than any in all previous RC forums, some important questions, common assumptions and choices through a concrete demonstration that this forum community can examine and answer, each for himself. It made visible many common assumptions that have produced unwanted results in at least three community efforts so far since 2008. Through examinations of this we can each better decide how to perfect our plans for a harmonious community building effort. It's an enormously valuable gift, not for taking sides (that's an old conflict holding pattern) but for expanding our awareness of the energies directing our own dreams. In my last post I asked for a move to legal citation on some points because I thought it might help to move the discussion out of a conflict-holding position and into a conflict resolving position. It had become confusing to me as opinion seemed to veer away from any common ground on which to meet. Legal cites provide common ground on which to resolve legal points in disagreements. On previous forums and an earlier version of this forum I have included tons of legal citations but reading through all the law references, the statutes, codes, rules, the court cases, the historical records, congressional acts, and more is very tedious both for the reader and writer. I don't generally include them except in a post I intend as instructive in legal applications, or one that I believe needs that common base. I certainly can cite sources with legal standing for any legal explanation I offer and will gladly do so when asked.

You are, of course, also right that Wikipedia provides many links, but only those the review panel finds acceptable for support of their informational position and opinions (censorship). Actually, in some topics their censorship is severe. If you will type into a search engine, "Is Wikipedia censored," then scroll past the pages of links to Wikipedia itself, you will find abundant examples of their censorship. Wikipedia is also third party pre-digested information. Perhaps this is why a Wikipedia citation or link has no standing in court documents and why several major University professors penalize students using links to Wikipedia in their assignments. This is not meant as an attack on you, Jerry, but information for you and others to examine or not, as you choose. Personally, I prefer to avoid getting information from censored sources and appreciate discovering those practices.

You asked, "How can the movement grow, if it needs to wait for such benefactors?". The benefactors you referred to were billionaires and other "community minded people". Puzzling question. Why would there be a need to wait? Anyone can start a community to their liking and beliefs if they free their mind of the programmed limitations. That's not exactly waiting but rather preparing. The effort to build a dream will demonstrate some degree of success or failure depending on the founders' and participants' thoughts (the unparalleled force in all of space). Most community founder hopefuls I've known had at least some money to start their community dream and some had a lot. They were stopped by factors that had nothing to do with absence of money or benefactors. Waiting for a benefactor may be the effect of a limiting belief or perhaps a need for more time to gain greater awareness, as happened in Russia.

You wrote, "I am advocating for the view that a Kin's Domain community could reasonably be built on the basis that Kin's Domains are bought and sold." I look forward to your demonstration of that that model. I'm certain there are many people who would feel safer in a model that is more like the world in which they grew up.

Your decision to avoid discussion of Vedrica to protect your court case is certainly understandable. These forum posts are, after all, in public view of all parties.

I can't thank you enough for your contribution(s) to the success of kins domain communities in America.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#18
As Vladimir's Anastasia said, "I exist for whom I exist".
But I suppose she said it in Russian. Do you know if this can be translated the same as the Hebrew which is rendered as "I am that I am"? I read this as an admission that she does not exist as a flesh and blood human being, while at the same time she is making a claim of divinity. Or rather, Vladimir is making that claim on her behalf.

Reading what Olga Guz said about Vladimir Megre, and what Megre wrote about Anastasia, my imagination runs wild. He was a Siberian entrepreneur, she was living in the city of Barnaul, and somehow they must have met as lonely hearts. She shared her poetry, he talked about finding her a publisher. Then something went wrong and they split up. But Megre was deeply moved by Olga Guz and her ideas, even as he was hurt by the abruptness of their breakup. Or perhaps his love was unrequited, even unrecognized. Finally, he re-invented her in a manner more to his own liking.

Of course I have no idea whether this really happened. But it seems to me that it's the sort of creative process that could lead Megre into writing those books. I do agree that Olga Guz's demonstrable contributions to the texts is minimal: short snatches of quotations, and perhaps some ideas that can be traced elsewhere as well.
On previous forums and an earlier version of this forum I have included tons of legal citations .... I certainly can cite sources with legal standing for any legal explanation I offer and will gladly do so when asked.
Are you saying that all this material has gone offline now? I would be very interested in any information you have about successful strategies for building simple structures, and using them as residences, without getting in trouble with building code officials.

About Wikipedia, what you are saying is absolutely true. But it does not negate the value or uniqueness of the resource. There are over five million articles at the site, maintained by almost 40 million registered editors of whom about 50,000 are considered highly active, and over 1000 administrators. This completely dwarfs any encyclopedia from the age of paper books. Wikipedia turns up first in almost any Google search, which gives it remarkable reach and influence. I myself have done some work as one of those 40 million editors, and have developed a certain grudging respect for the process, at the same time as I am outraged by some aspects. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on "reputable sources", and the definition of "reputable" has increasingly been manipulated to censor information that is in fact far more reputable than our mainstream media.

So, Wikipedia has an article about David Wynn Miller. The article is a co-creation of 141 authors, who have edited the page an average of once every ten days since it was first posted in 2009. It provides 44 references to discussions of Miller's activities and works in various "reputable sources" and/or his own self-published works. Aside from the article itself, the editors have discussed and debated various issues at the "talk" page. And, there are archives of edits that have been rejected, many of which are just as informative and/or enlightening as the edits that survived. Where else are you going to find such a compendium of readily accessible information?

If there's something about David Wynn Miller that's verifiable in court documents, and that does not appear in the article, I could try to get it added. I have a fairly decent record of making edits that stick.

Re: Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#19
:Joyce-M: wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:05 pm

You asked, "How can the movement grow, if it needs to wait for such benefactors?". The benefactors you referred to were billionaires and other "community minded people". Puzzling question. Why would there be a need to wait? Anyone can start a community to their liking and beliefs if they free their mind of the programmed limitations.
Whether "anyone can start a community" depends on their skills and financial resources, as well as the scale of their aspirations.

If a person would be content to live a nomadic house-free lifestyle on land they don't own, then there is no need to wait. That's what Anastasia did, unless I'm missing something.

If a person wants to live on a hectare titled in their name, with a living fence and a pleasant little house, fully paid and mortgage free, then that requires some more resources. Some people have funds available, but many don't. And this is a lonely implementation of the Ringing Cedars model: the nearest like-minded person might be miles away.

In the billionaire story in Book 8.1, John Heitzman buys up all the land within a hundred mile radius, and gives it all away. I had thought you were saying that this was your model of a true Ringing Cedars community. One which you're implementing on a small scale at Charisma, where you purchased 80 acres and you're making some of it available to others. Only a very small percentage of people in the world, have the assets to be able to make gifts of free land to others.

What I'm saying is, that IF your model of the Ringing Cedars movement is that it should grow by means of gifts of land from the well-to-do to others, THEN the limiting factor is going to be the existence of those wealthy benefactors who are in a position to make gifts of family homesteads. You can call it "preparing" or "time to gain greater awareness", but time will pass and nothing will be happening.

Does that make sense?
cron