Hello from Vedrica Forest Gardens LLC near Weippe, Idaho

#1
:Joyce-M: wrote: One community effort in Idaho set up their land purchase and membership in an LLC. The nightmares they have been going through as a result is a true horror story. I won't even detail that story here and many readers wouldn't even believe it. One couple may have managed to hold on to their domain and 8 years of work there, but it's not done yet so time will tell. I certainly hope they are successful but they've been through hell trying to protect their domain. I hope they join this forum as they have so much valuable experience to share with others wanting to start or join new kins domain communities.
Yep, that's our LLC. I can't deny that the experience has had its unpleasant aspects for all concerned up until now.

I got involved as a non-resident member / investor, and I'm now also the plaintiff in a lawsuit aimed at resolving various conflicts that have occurred, with the goal of saving the project for all concerned. Because of ongoing litigation, I probably shouldn't be posting here. But I've long since decided that it's best to be at least cautiously open and communicative, in hopes of finding solutions.

I've been involved in negotiations with other members, and now I would like to seek guidance from others in this movement.
:Joyce-M: wrote: People who wanted to participate were easy to find. People who knew and understood the zoning and building laws in America and Canada were nearly non-existent outside of real estate contractors.
I'm not a real estate contractor. But I've been involved in many projects and I believe I've acquired a basic understanding of those zoning and building laws. I was also involved with discussions with the community founders at Vedrica from the beginning. The choice to form an LLC (a type of corporation with simplified management structure) seemed like a very obvious approach. This is the way it's typically done in the USA for any sort of real estate development: the developer sets up a corporate entity to manage the project.

Our project consists of 270 acres located in a remote rural area. It's five miles to the nearest grocery store at Weippe, and 45 miles to the nearest metropolitan area of Lewiston-Clarkston.

Within the basic structure of an LLC in the state of Idaho, and consistent with the land development laws, there are several options for how to proceed. The obvious and easy thing to do is to subdivide into parcels of ten to forty acres each, and the zoning allows for up to two houses on each parcel. There are other options for "planned unit developments", condominiums and so forth. But the requirements for those sorts of developments are much more complex, and they're really meant for urban areas. In our location, my analysis has been that to build a Ringing Cedars settlement with involving more than a few households, we would need to subdivide the land into smaller parcels. (Another option is to completely ignore the zoning and building codes, and develop at will. But even in remote rural Idaho, there are possible downsides to that approach.)

Once the parcel has been subdivided, the land could continue to be held in common title by the LLC, or the land titles could be issued to the individual settlers.

I have learned that an ideal of the Ringing Cedars movement, is that ownership of a Kin's Domain homestead should be a birthright and no one should have to pay for it. I have some ideological sympathy for that position. But in our case, the community bought the land with a cash down payment provided by the founding members, and with a mortgage.

And so here's my first question: was that a reasonable thing to do, to pay cash money for land, and commit to pay more?

And is it reasonable to expect new members who want to own a homestead, to pay for it with US dollars?

If members pay for a homesite, is it reasonable for them to expect to own fee simple title to their land? Or, conversely, is it important that the community (that is, the LLC) continues to own all the land?

Next question: is it important that the domains be NO BIGGER than 1 hectare? One couple needed extra land to graze their goats. Another just wanted more space. Is that OK? Or is the ideal of one hectare meant to be a check on excess consumption, so that there is ultimately room on the planet so that everyone can have that one hectare but no more, and with space left over for wildlife?

And, I've learned that there is an aspiration that each homestead should remain within a single family for generations. But the fact is, that's often not how things work out in America. Kids grow up and have minds of their own, and they don't always want to live in remote rural Idaho. Or maybe there are three kids fighting for the house. Vedrica hasn't been around long enough for those issues to come up. But also, sometimes, the community turns out not to be a good fit, and people simply want to move on. We've had that happen, more than once.

Having purchased a domain, is there anything in Ringing Cedars ideals that would prevent the owner of that domain from selling it to another family? That is, given that land normally isn't free according to the customs of the USA, and the owners paid for it. Or is it important that the domain, having been abandoned, is then free for the next family that wants it?

I guess I thought the answers to these questions were clear enough, when it comes to building a community in the state of Idaho. If it's going to happen, it's going to cost money. If people pay, they want title to their land. And if they are really the owners, they're free to sell -- perhaps subject to reasonable constraints imposed by the community.

But (at least in my observation) our community has a diversity of opinions about these basic questions, which were not addressed with clarity at the beginning. I don't want to name any names, or blame anyone for anything. But I believe that these disagreements are the reason why the group has been so much at odds, and why we're late with our mortgage payments.

I would appreciate your thoughts?

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

#2
Greetings Jerry,

I am so glad to read your posts. The experiences at Vedrica are very important to future community dreamers and planners. I've been trying to get others associated with Vedrica and other active community efforts to join this forum but living the kins domain lifestyle often is all consuming and leaves little time or interest in online activities. Most just aren't very interested or don't have the time, especially during warm seasons (and during demanding court battles). I am grateful for your perspectives and questions.

Your questions are excellent!! Each one deserves its own topic and discussion. I want to spend some time contemplating them before I post my responses here.

Welcome to this forum (which isn't very active yet but still very important).
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

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

#4
Greetings Jerry,

I'd like to throw in my thoughts in response to your excellent questions. First, I want to thank you for your extremely important post. The real life experiences of communities and their choices may be the best grounding and balancing factor for community dreamers with huge gaps in their comprehension of both legal and natural reality. Each real life story of community building is a tremendous gift to the kin's domain dreamers, many of whom are still immersed in what I call, "system-think." Over the past 13 years through three community planning groups, a north American Kins Council group, many conversations with prospective community members and actual community members, one thing we've discovered is that there are probably an infinite number of possible perspectives about what the Ringing Cedars books say and mean. Kins domain dreamers imagine a vast range of paradise lifestyles including everything from a modern retirement community in the country to living in a hole dug into the ground with nothing else but a garden and a car. With the few community choices currently available in America, finding one that fits one's personal version of a kins domain paradise would be a stretch. Nevertheless we will get there eventually and every effort contributes to that future success, even those that don't turn out as we thought we imagined (ours included). Our imagining needs some strengthening. Here are my thoughts in response to your post.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"Within the basic structure of an LLC in the state of Idaho, and consistent with the land development laws, there are several options for how to proceed."
Before I can effectively respond to your important and even critical questions, I must address the sentence quoted above. Those words are built on a vast amount of information including law, how law functions, jurisdictional parameters, and legal presumptions (both correct and erroneous). Everything you said in that quote is accurate as far as it goes ... but it speaks of only a very narrow band of possibilities and law (actually code, not really law). Throughout our country the structure and potential of LLC's, as well as land development law are 100% governed (meaning limited) by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Within that structure of commercial governance there is no possibility of self-governance as it would be in the case of a vedruss-type of kins domain, except within the parameters (the box) established in that Code (UCC). From your post it sounds as though you and the other founding LLC members have presumed from the beginning planning stages, that Vedrica would be a "commercial" venture, at least in some aspects. Key words that indicate this are "investors", "Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)", "real estate" and "planned unit development". All of those terms have specific legal definitions and limitations in commerce as established by governments. The activities based on those definitions are therefore under their jurisdiction (control). This is such an important point because the concept of kins domains as presented in the RC books is first and foremost NON-commercial. Any commercial activity in them is a by-product of one's relationship with the life of their kins domain. Most community planners I've known were looking for some kind of legal entity to hold the land and act as a protective umbrella or tax shelter. In a commercial jurisdiction with commercial relationships and activities, that is wise. However, if one learns how to move to a non-commercial jurisdiction (a legal move, not a physical move) then no protection entity is needed because there is no commercial threat. While not necessary, a community planning group may still want to place the land in a private non-commercial entity such as a pure trust for purposes of smooth transitions in the events of illness or death of a founding member.

Let me give full disclosure here about my relationship to the Vedrica group. The original two planners/founders were once part of our Colorado Kins Domains planning group in Colorado. The man remains a good friend and the woman with her husband lived at my home in Colorado for some months before going to Oregon. At one point I was asked to help some of those in the defendant position in your court case. I refused for ethical reasons based on my own beliefs about man and God and my very strong belief that kins domain communities as presented in the RC books can not function freely from a commercially governed platform such as a Limited Liability Corporation. In fact, it's the entrapments of the global commercial lifestyle that Anastasia's dream has solved for us. This is presented throughout the books but very succinctly in book ten when the dark brother narrated a very clear picture of our modern commercial lifestyle and it's severe conflicts and suffering.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"I got involved as a non-resident member/investor, and I'm now also the plaintiff in a lawsuit aimed at resolving various conflicts".
Nearly everyone planning a kins domain community in an English speaking country looks at the possible legal "entities" to hold and control the land. These are generally: Limited Liability Corporation, full liability corporation, Corporate Sole, partnerships, various kinds of trusts, and sole proprietor. There are other possibilities and hybrids of those but within the national, state and local laws these are the ones we are "given" to use in the US. ALL of those are commercial, are commercially defined, and are therefore about gaining or protecting profit (a word that is also legally commercially defined). As such they are subject to government controls and regulations, meaning their restrictions of what can and can't be done, can and can't be said, can and can't be built, can and can't be incorporated into the lifestyle, can and can't be decided, and so on. Those entities are all completely subject to the zoning/building codes, taxing codes, policing codes, municipal requirements, etc. By their very nature these business and asset holding entities are in conflict with most people's dreams for their private self-governed kins domain. When those conflicts become threatening enough, the only legal means of resolution is a court decision (winners and losers) or arbitration if that was agreed to in the contracts (also about winners and losers). For these reasons and more, if I were seeking a community to join, I would NEVER choose one with a legal conflict built in to the legal structure of it, where I could possibly, even likely, lose my domain, my dreams, my efforts and my family's home. In no part of Anastasia's dream is there a threat of loss of one's space of love.

When a community is formed inside the structure and control of a commercial legal entity (a profit making or profit holding entity) by its very nature and definition that entity serves money not the people.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"This is the way it's typically done in the USA for any sort of real estate development: the developer sets up a corporate entity to manage the project".
That is true but the terms "real estate" and "developer" have no meaning except in legal commercial terms. 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. When you buy a real estate property, the very first document you will sign at the closing of the sale, states that the Grantor (hereinafter Seller) grants the land to the Grantee (hereinafter Buyer). The remaining many pages of the closing documents are all about the "property" (buildings, furnishings, equipment, easements, and valuable resources) that are located on the land that is being sold, usually for profit.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"we would need to subdivide the land into smaller parcels".
Again, you are using a commercially defined term, "subdivide", that carries a lot of legal baggage with it and places it in a certain legal jurisdiction. Our 12-18 years of public school education has locked people's thinking into legal boxes that we typically accept without question. We must free our minds of these educational traps in order to truly live Anastasia's dream of self-governed kins domain lifestyles. Do any readers of the RC books dream of a kins domain they are not free to design and build according their own dream, whatever that personal dream may be? Do they dream of building the dream of the developers and the local government? None I've ever met do. So what is another option in our modern US world?
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"Another option is to completely ignore the zoning and building codes, and develop at will. But even in remote rural Idaho, there are possible downsides to that approach".
Indeed, there are huge downsides to that approach, but that is the approach followed by those people who have lived in your community at Vedrica. None built with the approval and oversight of the local zoning and building offices nor did they establish themselves in any jurisdiction other than local county government which requires those controls. The downsides of that are 1) the buildings can't be included in the real property valuation except as a negative factor. 2) the presence of "illegal" structures may interfere with buyers' decisions. 3) the local government can and will bulldoze them if push comes to shove in that relationship. 4) It is a very unstable position and threat for a family to live under.

Are there other options? That depends on the goal of the land holder(s). In your case the land holder is an LLC which does not have the option of choosing a non-commercial jurisdiction, since it has existence only in commercial law. It is important to note that members of an LLC do not have any ownership rights of the property held in the LLC. Therefore they can hold limited commercial liability in relation to the property owned by the Limited Liability Corp. The LLC members have ownership only of the profits and losses gained by the LLC. They may have some degree of decision making power depending on how the by-laws are written. The goals of the LLC are found ONLY in the by-laws and minutes of official board meetings, not in the minds and will of the members except as how those are agreed on by board member vote and recorded in the LLC official records in the office of Secretary of State. In the case of Vedrica, that record may be legally tainted because of a possible hostile and illegal take-over action by the registered agent. I have not reviewed the Vedrica LLC records (assuming they've been recorded) so I don't know the goals of that entity (the records could easily be reviewed at the website of the Idaho Secretary of State Office). However, I do know that the LLC's goals are commercial in nature because of the reasons I've written above and because it has "investors" and holds "real estate".

For a man or woman (but not for legal entities), there are options for holding and managing the land in non-commercial venues or jurisdictions. I know at least three of those options but they all require a major overhaul of legal, personal and relationship concepts. They require that one comprehend relevant portions of the law at depth and align all relevant parts of their lifestyle to the chosen non-commercial jurisdiction. These possibilities are actually referenced in the Uniform Commercial Code and the local and national statutes (but in easy to miss places and language). The full discussion of this topic of options is too big to add into this already very long post. I'll present that information in another topic at a later time.

You suggested that "the land titles could be issued to the individual settlers (by the LLC). 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).

With that basic foundation of comprehension in place I'll respond to your first question.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"...was that a reasonable thing to do, to pay cash money for land, and commit to pay more?"
What is "reasonable" depends on your goals. If a goal is to gain profit, or buy and sell at a profit, then a cash down-payment and long term debt would be commercially reasonable. If your goals are to provide the most stable possible kins domains to people who wish to join the community, then long term debt would probably not be reasonable because with any property-secured-debt, foreclosure is always a possibility. Debt is a profit mechanism for lenders and sellers. It allows buyers to purchase more than they can afford or maintain, and it also allows investors to buy cheap, sell quickly at a higher price before paying off the loan and thereby make a profit. Debt always makes the purchase significantly more costly and gives the illusion of ownership without the reality of it. In reality the lender is the owner until the debt is paid. Debt only provides the owner with a limited type of ownership known as "ownership of use" of the real property until it is paid off. Vedrica provided the perfect example of how our commercial thinking muddies the dream and the building of kins domain communities. In your case, Jerry, as a non-resident investor, the debt on the land is a serious deterrent to many community members joining because it introduces an ongoing stress factor. Most prospective participants probably don't know you. They will likely wonder, "Will the debt be paid? How? By whom? Will my domain be stable?" That stress is compounded when the community members are not LLC decision makers. The debt in that scenario is fraught with emotional disturbance, stress, and instability, the very things we hope to end when moving to our kins domains.

Your next question was,
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"is it reasonable to expect new members who want to own a homestead, to pay for it with US dollars?"
Again, what is "reasonable" depends on your goals. If your goal is only to help a group of people get the land for a community until they can pay you back in US dollars, then, yes, that is reasonable. If the goal is to make a profit in doing that, I think that is still reasonable if it is done with full disclosure and commitment to the full realization of the community building process. If there is a time limit during which the investors are willing to help the community in this way, then problems for everyone begin to emerge with the community becoming unstable and the investors' investment becoming threatened. This is particularly so if the limited time frame was not disclosed at the time of agreement and payment by the new community members. In the US jurisdiction all commercial activity is governed by the contract. Man's thinking in this modern world has been so hi-jacked and limited that even outside of the commercial jurisdiction it is best to have a clear contract between founders and new community participants giving full disclosure of what is being offered and accepted. In our community building efforts at Charisma we do not sell land or property or memberships to prospective community participants. However, because there is no US dollar cost does not mean it's free of exchange value. Upon joining us the new member must learn, comprehend and protect the legal jurisdiction. That means the new community participant's lifestyle must be freed of government and commercial dependence. I don't mean that no money can be earned, but rather that it must be done and managed outside the parameters of commercial jurisdiction. Such a change is not easy nor fast, but when achieved, we at Charisma have the authority and power to grant parcels of land to each family that has completed the steps to receive a full land grant. I don't claim that our way is best but it's our perspective of a good transition from government authority to the self-governed lifestyle of the kins domain.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"If members pay for a homesite, is it reasonable for them to expect to own fee simple title to their land? Or, conversely, is it important that the community (that is, the LLC) continues to own all the land?"
This is a complex issue and the answer will vary from person to person. While Vedrica land is held in an LLC with a debt obligation against it, no kins domain purchasers can receive a fee simple title or any other form of title to their domain land. The title is held in the LLC and it is "clouded" by the lender's ownership interest until the debt is fully paid. A clouded title cannot be subdivided and parts sold in exchange for title without permission and partial release by the lender. Most won't do that because it diminishes their collateral that secures the loan. We've found many people who really don't want to change their modern lifestyle but still want to experience the kins domain dream to some limited extent. They would love to find a "kins domain version of a covenant controlled community or retirement community" with all of the amenities of modern homes. Eventually these will probably be available for those who want them. For those in that mindset, fee simple title might be sufficient and reasonable. They would be people who don't realize or don't care that fee simple title is merely "color of law". Legal dictionaries define "title" as color of law but that "colored law" does not extend beyond those jurisdictional limits (which are typically and intentionally pretty hard to discover). The jurisdiction that we know as the United States is one of the many jurisdictions that uses color of law; it looks and acts like law but isn't quite that and can be easily manipulated against the uneducated or unwary. The Black's Law definition of title says that it is evidence of ownership (not proof of ownership because proof of full ownership is not allowed in the US jurisdiction). In other words a title of any kind is merely a certificate issued by an entity in a limited specified jurisdiction with no more meaning than that which was intended and authorized by the issuing entity. As such, those titles can be and often are revoked. If one thinks he has ownership of land because he holds a title, all he has to do in order to prove the error of that assumption is to fail to pay the land tax for three years. He will quickly learn by his eviction who the real owner is, at least within that jurisdiction.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"is it important that the domains be NO BIGGER than 1 hectare? One couple needed extra land to graze their goats. Another just wanted more space. Is that OK? Or is the ideal of one hectare meant to be a check on excess consumption, so that there is ultimately room on the planet so that everyone can have that one hectare but no more, and with space left over for wildlife?"
Several of your statements have made me wonder if you have read All of the RC books. This question is answered in the books. Anastasia says that 2-1/2 acres is generally sufficient to fully sustain a family. However in book 8.1 she relates a story from the future in which a community is formed in Texas with 5 acre parcels. If you've been to central or western Texas you would see why 5 acres might be needed to sustain a family, at least for a generation or so. If the domain is set up as Anastasia describes there is no need to have space left over for wildlife as they will be somewhat integrated into the lifestyles of the families and between communities. There is also no need to make certain there is sufficient land for everyone because for a few more generations many people, maybe most, will want to keep their modern city lifestyle. As fewer and fewer people remain alive who choose the modern lifestyle, those beings awaiting rebirth who are drawn to that lifestyle will have fewer and fewer options for their rebirth. The waiting line will grow as the population diminishes to a beneficial size.

As far as space for grazing animals, that would depend on the community participants. Some communities in Russia have communal grazing areas for farm animals but most do not. This is an issue that we've encountered often. Many readers of the books have unconsciously or consciously combined modern ranching/farming concepts with the kins domain concept. I have no problem with that but some communities will accommodate that while others may not. At this time we don't. Both are okay in my opinion. I'd say that what's okay is what the community itself wants and can make into a beautiful harmonious reality. Then each perspective community member must determine if they are in agreement and wish to participate.

This next point you've made is an important topic.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"And, I've learned that there is an aspiration that each homestead should remain within a single family for generations. But the fact is, that's often not how things work out in America. Kids grow up and have minds of their own, and they don't always want to live in remote rural Idaho. Or maybe there are three kids fighting for the house. ... sometimes, the community turns out not to be a good fit, and people simply want to move on. We've had that happen, more than once".
There are at least two points there to be considered. First, children who have been reared in the system (whether living on a family homestead or not, may indeed choose to leave home and seek greener pastures. The modern program encourages that. We warn every prospective community participant with children, that in most cases children 5 years old or more are already too far into the system program to make a full or easy transition to a kins domain lifestyle in our community. After that age they feel too deprived of their system-lifestyle and suffer greatly during the transition. However, a younger child or one born on the land AND reared in connection with the nature of the land, is not likely to want to leave that lifestyle, at least for long. The system lifestyle will be too uncomfortable for them. As far as fighting over the parents' house, I think that is unlikely for kins domain reared children. Those who know and comprehend the concepts will want to choose and build their own kins domain with their own beloved near one of the families. Second point; community hopping is a problem in Russia as it has already been here. Until we individually and collectively learn to live in community without the need to control and manipulate others as is routine in modern world system, we will continue judging others as a "poor fit" and search futilely for a "good fit" instead of using our innate mind power to create the space of love we dream of for our communities.
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:19 pm
"Having purchased a domain, is there anything in Ringing Cedars ideals that would prevent the owner of that domain from selling it to another family? That is, given that land normally isn't free according to the customs of the USA, and the owners paid for it"
To me one of the really exciting things about Anastasias's presentation of kins domains and their communities is that they are created as a solution to and freedom from the commercially (economically) driven customs of the USA, at least to the extent we are able to allow ourselves that freedom. The thing that will prevent someone from selling their kins domain is the extremely powerful and fulfilling relationships one builds with self and the beings that comprise the nature of that domain. I have been building my dream on my domain for only 7 years and already I could not even contemplate selling it or ever leaving it. I would miss every blade of grass, every edible plant that grows just for me, the wild animals that live here harmoniously with us, the birds that nest here every spring and answer our bird whistles as long as we wish to interact with them, and the winter birds. I would miss the young trees of our new forest and living fence, the sounds of the river after a rain, each season's character and surprises, the feel of joy and welcome as I drive through our gate, and so much more. Why would I ever sell the domain that has taught me about expanding health, my own nature and potential, and will continue doing so as long as I live, which is longer now because of living here. Some people do abandon their domain before establishing these deep roots of connection. Because we don't sell our domains they can't be resold or used for profit. In our community agreement we give full disclosure about what constitutes abandonment of one's domain and that there will be no compensation for buildings, added trees, money spent, or any effort put into their dream on that domain. Upon full abandonment the domain will be cleaned up and put back into the pool from which new members draw their domain. My husband and I bought as much land as we could afford without debt. We were happy to do that part of building a community. Others who don't have funds for land but are serious about creating a space of love will join us and contribute other necessary tasks in the community building process or some with some available funds will add more land to this community. Like Vedrica, we have had several come who were hoping to find their dream, rather than build their dream of a space of love. They leave after discovering that building a space of love and learning to self-govern cannot be done within the customary thinking and lifestyle of the US. For some, changing those thinking habits and patterns of relating are not easy and are even terrifying.

Before ending this response to your many very beneficial questions and ideas, Jerry, I want to express my gratitude for them. You have clearly verbalized important concepts for people to examine within their own thoughts to find out for themselves how far they are willing to transform their customary US thinking and lifestyle in dreaming and building a kins domain space of love. There are probably no wrong answers to that determination. It is the duty and obligation of community founders and later participants to disclose as clearly as possible the limits and terms of their offer, their duties and commitment to the community, and the duties and risks being placed on each family who participates. It is a difficult challenge we have dealt with here at Charisma, but how else can kins domain dreamers make a reasonable choice about the risks and change they are ready to make (barring an accurate crystal ball)? I also wish to express my gratitude and hopefully the gratitude of the other families involved in the current Vedrica conflict, for your part in helping the community begin. Regardless of how the legal conflict ends I doubt the defendants would ever wish they hadn't spent the time with their domain. Why else would they fight so hard and so well to hold their space of love?
Blessings.
Last edited by :Joyce-M: on Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

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

#5
Jerry wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am
Hello Joyce, thanks for your greetings. Here is one more question for you. In a "Ringing Cedars Settlement", what are people looking for in their relationships with their neighbors in the group? Why is it important to have a "Settlement" and a "community", as opposed to just buying a small acreage in a typical suburban or rural neighborhood?
Greetings Jerry,
Your questions have been excellent. I saved this one for a separate response because it is so very important in my opinion and I don't want it lost in a long Q&A type of post. I am very grateful for the opportunity to address this question. Without exception every one who has come to examine our community and those who joined us in our community effort has come for the community experience as their priority, with the kins domain dream experience very far down on their list of priorities. Here's what that looks like: They want help with their projects. They want others around them to ease the hard work, provide shortcuts, give ideas and working solutions. They want fun. They want to have laughter, music, dancing, celebrating. They want to feel wanted, accepted as they are, confirmation that they are okay and on the right track, and safe with "like minded" people surrounding them. They want to live with shared responsibility, not full responsibility for their experiences. All of those wants take priority over commitment to their own 2.5 acre kin's domain. It is extremely daunting to stand in one's hectare of raw land with no man-made improvements and suddenly realize that every part of your carefully thought out and elaborate dream for that land must be created physically by you and your family without the help of a friendly bear and with little or no knowledge of how to proceed. Why is it so?

We have grown up in communities of limited thinking and lifestyles. We have been educated in a public school system carefully designed to limit our thought to an acceptable range of motion that will allow us to feel some degree of okay with our extremely limited daily grind. Most people can only imagine allowing themselves to enjoy living if they have the basic required modern "conveniences" that keep us believing we are weak and that life is hard without them. We have been well-taught that we are in danger without the approval and support of authorities and friends. Before three years of age we have already learned how to abandon relationships that don't supply us with the feelings we want, and we have learned that we dare not allow unauthorized feelings with our own mind power. We require someone else's approval or agreement to "authorize" us to feel good about self. People bounce around from friend to friend until they find some who will "make" them feel what they want to feel. As a people we've never learned nor taught our children how to consciously use the most powerful energy in all of space, the power of our mind, in application to relationship with self. Without that awareness and skill we seek happiness, power, fulfillment, joy and more from others. We also blame others for our perceived lacks, our weakness, our mistakes and our pain, all of which are learned thought patterns, not innate to our natural being. We punish those we blame by some form of abandoning acceptance of them and even by demonizing them. It's so automatic, so universally accepted, so pervasive in all aspects of our culture that it is largely invisible to us except as victims. It is painful to live in a state of feeling unacceptable and rejected but without the knowledge of how to feel acceptable and perfect just because we want to and because it's our innate right to use our thoughts as we wish, we begin to seek for others who will "give" us the feeling of acceptance we long for. We desperately need that outside "authority" when our own authority is continually denied by our own unconscious thought.

This is the source of the "community hopping" that goes on throughout the Russian communities as well as here. In relationships, when we hold ourselves powerless to use our thought to create good feelings for ourselves and others but rather unconsciously hold our thought in denial of good feelings, then we will eventually feel compelled to abandon those we mistakenly blame for denying us the good feelings that we long for and need. Then we go to the next community or friend who will agree with our belief that we were powerless to change our feelings for ourselves without outside authority from someone who likes us. Community hopping is a manifestation of the underlying belief structure that keeps man feeling little and powerless. It's the root of needing to control, manipulate and hurt others, and eventually to abandon them in an effort to find "a better fit." But what can be done about it?

The irony of this is that by placing a "like-minded" community as the solution to their learned emptiness, their emotional longing, they push away the very thing that will provide the true solution, the building of and connecting with their kin domain dream on their own hectare of land. Nature is an excellent teacher and very willing to support us in reconnecting with our own true nature, which is the ability to consciously wield the most powerful energy in all of space, our thought (book 6, pg 148, Black cover). Community as a medication for unhappiness will ALWAYS fail in the long term. In the books Anastasia presented her dream with the first step being to find and create your kin's domain. When that step is given top priority the community experiences she showed us will take care of themselves. People connect with their own true nature as they connect with the nature of their domains. After that, the only community experience possible is an expression of that and always secondary to it.

So then is community important at all? Of course it is, but not as a medication for feeling powerless or empty. The importance of close relationship is in its stimulus to deeper thought and greater self awareness. Its a collective function of man and as such community acts as a repository of true wisdom, knowledge, history, potential, and love. Community (relationships) can never be a source of any of those. Rather, it is the enlargement of that which is in ourselves. Without it we would not be able to see ourselves clearly. In modern thinking, we are taught to see ourselves through the eyes of others but in the Divine program others make our own thought visible to us and thereby give us the opportunity to scrutinize, test and perfect our own thought, our own UN-paralleled power in all of space.

So why join a kin's domain community instead of using a modern world community to perfect our thought? It's a matter of desire and intention. One who wants to break free of the self-destructive thought patterns of the modern world cannot achieve that by immersing oneself in the illusions of the modern world lifestyle and thinking. That would be like standing neck deep in the ocean and trying to dry oneself by thinking about it but taking no action to step out of the water. In a kin's domain community, there is a collective of man that is stepping out of the illusion, connecting with the nature of the land and themselves. They must each still do their own work of drying themselves and cleaning up the system-think patterns of thought, but the stimulus from the others in the shared experience is in the direction of the reality of oneself instead of in the direction of illusion. I don't claim that one choice of location or community is better than another. "Better" or "Good" is in the mind of the thinker. Every choice serves the dream (the good) (book 1, pg 177, Black Cover).
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

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

#6
Hello Joyce,

Thank you for these very thoughtful responses. To continue the dialog, I would like to clarify that although I'm an investing member of the LLC, I am not the mortgage holder. I am in the same position as the other members: at risk of a total loss because of the possibility that the mortgage might not be paid.

Also, I was not a community founder, although I had been in dialog with the community founders before they purchased the land. I had simply assumed that the community was operating in conformance with Idaho and US commercial statutes and codes. I don't recall that there was any debate or discussion about any alternatives to the use of a corporate entity to hold the land title. At any rate, our LLC was formed in 2010 by recording Articles of Organization with the Idaho Secretary of State, and the land was purchased in the LLC's name.

Where you wrote:
For a man or woman (but not for legal entities), there are options for holding and managing the land in non-commercial venues or jurisdictions. I know at least three of those options but they all require a major overhaul of legal, personal and relationship concepts... The full discussion of this topic of options is too big to add into this already very long post. I'll present that information in another topic at a later time.
This puzzles me, because I am not aware of any such options that would be recognized as legitimate by local or national authorities. I know you've put a lot of time and effort into answering my questions already. But if you could explain what you mean here, perhaps it would help me to understand what some members of our community have been trying to do.

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

#7
Joyce: above you mention the possibility of having the land owned by a "pure trust". A quick google search will turn up many articles, mostly posted by law firms, warning that "pure trusts" and other forms of non-commercial trusts are not recognized by US courts. For example, this one which concludes: "a tax scam by any other name, will still land you in jail."

https://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/contrusts.htm

Do you have any reply to this? It's possible that you might have placed title to Charisma in Colorado in a "pure trust" and you haven't had any trouble (yet) because there's been no reason for the government to test the provisions of the trust (yet).

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

#8
HI Joyce,

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.

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.

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. It's better to have a mortgage, than to pay rent.

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

#9
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:02 pm
Where you wrote:
For a man or woman (but not for legal entities), there are options for holding and managing the land in non-commercial venues or jurisdictions. I know at least three of those options but they all require a major overhaul of legal, personal and relationship concepts... The full discussion of this topic of options is too big to add into this already very long post. I'll present that information in another topic at a later time.
This puzzles me, because I am not aware of any such options that would be recognized as legitimate by local or national authorities. I know you've put a lot of time and effort into answering my questions already. But if you could explain what you mean here, perhaps it would help me to understand what some members of our community have been trying to do.
Greetings Jerry,
This is another good question (you seem to have a gift for them). I do not wish to morph this forum or topic into an instructional platform for legalities but I do wish to present enough information to act as a stimulus to freeing our thought from the government created and controlled boxes (jurisdictions). Nevertheless, I want to honor your question with a significant relevant answer. I always begin my examination of government and law topics with a legal dictionary because many of the words we use in common English are not the same as they are in legal applications. In Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, "legitimate" means; 1. Complying with the law; lawful, <a legitimate business> 3. Genuine; valid <a legitimate complaint>. I'll focus on these words you wrote, " I am not aware of any such options that would be recognized as legitimate by local or national authorities. To know what is "legitimate" in local or national law one must understand the details of that law, the fact and location of its boundaries, the intent of that law, what empowers that law, and how people become subject (submissive) to it. Law is empowered by a higher law. Every lawform (jurisdiction) has its outer limits (boundaries) beyond which it has no force or authority.

Contained within the written law of each lawform there is always full disclosure of the limits and boundaries of that law jurisdiction. However, the authors of the laws of a specific form of jurisdiction are extremely skilled at hiding and disguising that disclosure even to the point of making it unrecognizable to the unstudied readers, the general public. We, the general public, most often accept our naivete and even protect it. So we go to attorneys to explain to us "the" law. Hardly anyone would think to look up the word "attorn", but in Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition it says: "1. To agree to be the tenant of a new landlord. 2. To transfer (money, goods, etc.) to another." That is what all attorneys do and they take an oath that supports that end. It would be a wise exercise to ask oneself what "new Landlord" might the attorneys of a particular and limited jurisdiction want to get me to agree to as a tenant? And to what "other" might the attorneys of a specific and limited jurisdiction want to transfer my money, goods, etc.? When you understand that all lawform jurisdictions (boxes) exist inside higher lawform jurisdictions, which exist inside higher lawform jurisdictions, and so on all the way up to Nature's Law, then you will see that the attorneys of a specific and limited jurisdiction are serving the "masters" of that jurisdiction, NOT the public they purport to serve. If the attorneys don't do this they would be disbarred. Courts have repeatedly ruled that attorneys serve the courts NOT the client. Attorneys attorn the clients and their property to the court's jurisdiction.

It is generally a bit of a shock to examine and discover the boundaries of jurisdictions, the hierarchy of higher law-based jurisdictions that empower and authorize each of them, and how that Universal governing power and authority entrusted to each member of Mankind was harvested into a collective force wielded by a few men globally to control and limit the general population of the planet. It is a truly masterful feat that demonstrates the generally unrecognized potential of Man's thinking capacity. But, the fact remains that those masters that manage man's collective mind power are still just men, the same as all of us. They do not have greater power but they do have greater knowledge. The lack of knowledge can be remedied fairly easily and Anastasia has shown a path that supports that expansion of self-awareness. It's not so easy to get past the dreaming stage and into the building stage but that is part of the expansion. One cannot free one's self from a limiting political jurisdiction without freeing one's thought and vice versa to a great extent. They are two sides of one coin. In book 8.1 Anastasia tells the story of Demon Cratius. Cratius realized there was no way he could attain his goal through physical compulsion alone (of managing masses of slaves to serve him). "What he needed to do was exert a psychological influence on every single individual, on whole nations of people. He had to bring about the thought of every single human being to the notion that slavery is the highest bliss. He had to launch a self-developing programme to disorient whole nations in space, time and ideas -- especially in their literal perceptions of reality." (pg 72 Black Cover, emphasis mine) Our modern governments are still based on this principle and seem to have mastered it.

In accord with the legal definition #3 of "legitimate", what is lawfully "Genuine, valid" is 100% determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which it resides (has been created within or attorned to). I urge anyone interested in verifying or exploring this to begin their own research. One of the clearest presentations I've ever seen appears in a video called InPower, episode #1: A Mass Action Liability https://vimeo.com/231176911. The diagram explaining the jurisdictions within jurisdictions begins at 15 minutes 45 seconds into the video, although the entire video is very worth watching. Just know that the man speaking and the diagram he presents do not include all the jurisdictions. The hidden global and local jurisdictions (several of them) are not presented here but are shown in other presentations by other people. Nevertheless, they fit into the concept in the same ways.

I hope this is sufficient information to address your question, Jerry, and maybe stimulate a little deeper examination of the legal world and its operation.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.

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

#10
Jerry wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:58 pm
Joyce: above you mention the possibility of having the land owned by a "pure trust". A quick google search will turn up many articles, mostly posted by law firms, warning that "pure trusts" and other forms of non-commercial trusts are not recognized by US courts. For example, this one which concludes: "a tax scam by any other name, will still land you in jail."

https://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/contrusts.htm

Do you have any reply to this? It's possible that you might have placed title to Charisma in Colorado in a "pure trust" and you haven't had any trouble (yet) because there's been no reason for the government to test the provisions of the trust (yet).
Greetings Jerry,
Yes, there are many such articles on line. My response to your previous post addresses this in part but I'll add a bit more here. If you recall, I mentioned the possible use of a pure trust in one use only -- as a way to provide for smooth transition of the management of the land and legal function of the community in the event of a founder's (land holder's) serious illness or death. That has nothing to do with IRS or their "taxation scheme" (court's words, not mine). The internet articles you refer to are about IRS jurisdiction and taxation. To understand them one would need a clear comprehension of jurisdictions, for example, where IRS jurisdiction exists in the hierarchy of jurisdictions, the boundaries of their jurisdictional authority, what empowers them and how one becomes subject to their taxation. Few people have that understanding and to them these articles appear to apply to "everyone". That is how they are intended to appear and IRS staff works very hard to maintain that appearance. They weed out the people who do not wish to research and think for themselves and prefer to follow a higher authority in knowledge or power. This is not meant as a disparaging comment. We all went through the same educational system and learned the same "authority" traps. It is not easy to break free of that thought and emotion pattern.

There are pure trusts that have stood the test of court decision against IRS and also many that IRS won't even touch but that's because they are managed by knowledgeable and skilled trustees. IRS will never inform the public of these. In fact, court cases that could expose the subterfuges of government agencies are sealed by courts and thereby made unavailable to the general public. In order to access them one has to personally know one of the parties of the case and access the case through them. Articles such as the one you referenced are especially effective in stopping the general population from pursuing trusts for their various lawful uses. For someone who has not educated themselves beyond the "official" version of information, or are confused by the mass of conflicting information on the internet, or don't have a knowledgeable and skilled trustee, any type of trust would not serve a good use for a kin's domain community plan.

We do not have our land in a pure trust or any trust for that matter because it's not needed. I have educated myself well in law and governance and prefer to hold full responsibility for the jurisdiction of both myself and my land. You asked if perhaps we haven't had any trouble (yet) because there's been no reason for the government to test the provisions of the trust (yet)? Since we don't have a trust that point is not relevant to us, however, it brings up an important point to examine. If any part of a government is "testing" the provisions of any jurisdiction or entity structure (land trusts, pure trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.), that can legally occur for only one reason: either the people, the land or the use of the land has not been properly placed or held in the jurisdiction that is not in conflict with the "testing" agency. That might be caused by any number of missed steps and can easily be solved by identifying and correcting one's error. For example, a failure to correctly or fully complete the steps that establish and maintain your jurisdictional location (for people, land or use); a failure to adequately give clear and legally irrefutable notice to the offices of a relevant agency of a competing jurisdiction; or the traverse of the people involved into making use of benefits rom a competing jurisdiction without adequately addressing the safe passage laws (shipping laws) between jurisdictions. I don't claim that this is an easy education but I do claim that it's required for any person or group wishing to live in the structure of full or even transitional self-governance. It's no small journey to move the mind from the programmed limited thinking about governance and our relationships to it.

Let me close this response with a point I hear often and even showed up on earlier versions of this forum. People are enamored with the idea of changing the laws to suit their particular version of "the good life". That's the magic of democracy -- 51% of the people get to fight for the power to shove their dream and agenda down the throats of 49%, then in a later election the tables turn. Given enough elections everyone gets equal time being the shove-er and the shove-ee. No matter how we slice it this is not anyone's idea of a paradise lifestyle or governing system. What's the point of changing laws in one or two jurisdictions when the people under those laws don't even comprehend how jurisdictions begin, end, or function? I agree that we need change in law but the change we need is not to new laws in old jurisdictions that we hope will allow us to live our dreams. We need to each grow our own knowledge to the point that individually we can no longer be controlled or manipulated by any law being wielded by a handful of global or local decision makers. In such a personal growth of knowledge we will learn to self-govern. The current modern governing system provides an important fail-safe element keeping chaos at bay. We can leave that system alone to serve its purpose as long as it's needed while mankind continues to wake up to our true nature, each one individually when ready to free their mind. The current governing system will remain a limiting factor for all those who need that; for those who aren't ready to assume the responsibility of growing their knowledge to the levels that will allow them to leave the people-controlling jurisdictions and move into effective self-governance where we can rear our children in a self-governed state of self-development. I know of three existing jurisdictions that support this kind of growth into self-governance. 1) the jurisdiction of organic law (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The United States Constitution of 1792, and the Northwest Ordinance). If you are both strong in will, and knowledgeable in this congressionally acknowledged and declared organic law you can stand and live fairly free in this jurisdiction. 2) A corporate jurisdiction with a privately owned, established, recorded and carefully managed DBA (Doing-Business-As, entity). This takes a very high level of knowledge and a lot of micro-managing of governing-system functions but allows one to sort of “straddle” a commercial and a self-governed jurisdiction. 3) An entirely new jurisdictional option that supersedes ALL jurisdictional boxes all the way to top global governing jurisdictions. This option requires knowledge acquisition and skill as do the other two. However, it is exciting in its potential, its freedom, its ability to support people in transitioning away from slave programming to full self-governance. It's new, it's a little rough around the edges but it is more powerful than any other option I've seen demonstrated (as opposed to theory which is little more than opinion). 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.

I do not recommend any one of these three to anyone. I present them as possible options. Each man and woman must do their own research work and decide what they are willing to do to begin self-governance, or if they are willing to begin that journey at all.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
cron