Tweet
Literally.
My friend mentioned a nominee is ready to replace the pastor at his church (home). 501(c)(3) no doubt. I spent a year in monthly business meetings at a Science of Mind church. They were having service in their own building, worth a million dollars and over the years had nearly paid off the loan. The President and other officers spoke about how exciting it was when they were only $1,200 from "owning" the building outright.
I recall finding that the officers would be excited confusing and it confounded me about who owned the building, really.
Was it the shareholders?
Was it Science of Mind (Corporate Headquarters - Golden, Colorado)?
Was it the congregants calling the local church their Home?
Was it the Officers running the business?
One of the officers wrote a Letter to and about the pastor causing her to resign. Apparently she was confused about who owned the building too. But it left the congregants looking for a pastor and hiring visiting Science of Mind pastors. There was an interim pastor who kept things together too. Meanwhile the building loan turned into an "Interest Only" loan; inferring that all that money collected over the years - $1,000,000.00 - was spent sustaining a loan, and never actually paying off somebody (congregants/officers/Corporate/shareholders) whoever was in debt to the bank. Nothing more, the bank still owned the building...
The trust always owns things.
So what was really happening is that the officers were viewing the congregation as autonomous of Science of Mind. I suppose that the original pastor was considering the people who put all that cash in the collection plate and especially people who would will or donate money out of the happy feeling of being entertained - in fact the Science of Mind congregation was called CSL for Community for Spiritual Living. So quite often people would "fall in love" with the church, as often happens to people and therefore wealthy people are prone to donate very large pledges.
A Catholic priest was nominated and took the position. He said he was a former priest but disclosed in a course that he had never been through the retirement process and the Church (Roman Catholic) would take him back at any time in a heartbeat. That seems important in the 1666 cestui que vie trust about ownership and the 2016 Jubilee. But that might be too obvious about ownership.
Suddenly this priest in administrative organization for Denver's big Science of Mind congregation was the solution to CSL's problems. Suddenly owning a $1M building had turned into a big crisis! The new pastor found a much smaller building that could be expanded upon with a big loan and moved, apparently getting out of a rental lease with the $1M building, that CSL no longer "owned". It turns out it was only an "interest only" loan.
The Trust - Science of Mind/Golden - owned and had always owned the building. The people congregants who would write and tithe donations were always the renters. The officers were always agents operating the entertainment for the one-time each Sunday use of the congregants and to pay off a loan made to Science of Mind in Golden, Colorado; probably through an agent called Community for Spiritual Living.
Honoring pets, this service was held outside.
I am mulling this over in order to better understand endorsement and ownership of the Fed in those who use its currency. And to express better my role as First Redeemer. I heard recently that the Albany Remand is also published on Lexis Nexus. Interestingly I have always thought this publication meant that rulings, orders, opinions and decrees of the cause and case have been made available as "authority" - case law. Stare decisis is what prevents appeals justices from practicing law from the bench.
See that? The justices are not allowed to practice law. They are bound to rely upon "authority" - or cases that are shepardized in Lexis Nexus so that they can be easily found and cited by attorneys arguing in appeal.
I am probably confusing you now, how this works into the above point. But if this was simple then the congregants who have their love diverted into the pockets of the alchemists would understand how their ignorance of trust law is working against the fruits of their labor.
My friend mentioned a nominee is ready to replace the pastor at his church (home). 501(c)(3) no doubt. I spent a year in monthly business meetings at a Science of Mind church. They were having service in their own building, worth a million dollars and over the years had nearly paid off the loan. The President and other officers spoke about how exciting it was when they were only $1,200 from "owning" the building outright.
I recall finding that the officers would be excited confusing and it confounded me about who owned the building, really.
Was it the shareholders?
Was it Science of Mind (Corporate Headquarters - Golden, Colorado)?
Was it the congregants calling the local church their Home?
Was it the Officers running the business?
One of the officers wrote a Letter to and about the pastor causing her to resign. Apparently she was confused about who owned the building too. But it left the congregants looking for a pastor and hiring visiting Science of Mind pastors. There was an interim pastor who kept things together too. Meanwhile the building loan turned into an "Interest Only" loan; inferring that all that money collected over the years - $1,000,000.00 - was spent sustaining a loan, and never actually paying off somebody (congregants/officers/Corporate/shareholders) whoever was in debt to the bank. Nothing more, the bank still owned the building...
The trust always owns things.
So what was really happening is that the officers were viewing the congregation as autonomous of Science of Mind. I suppose that the original pastor was considering the people who put all that cash in the collection plate and especially people who would will or donate money out of the happy feeling of being entertained - in fact the Science of Mind congregation was called CSL for Community for Spiritual Living. So quite often people would "fall in love" with the church, as often happens to people and therefore wealthy people are prone to donate very large pledges.
A Catholic priest was nominated and took the position. He said he was a former priest but disclosed in a course that he had never been through the retirement process and the Church (Roman Catholic) would take him back at any time in a heartbeat. That seems important in the 1666 cestui que vie trust about ownership and the 2016 Jubilee. But that might be too obvious about ownership.
Suddenly this priest in administrative organization for Denver's big Science of Mind congregation was the solution to CSL's problems. Suddenly owning a $1M building had turned into a big crisis! The new pastor found a much smaller building that could be expanded upon with a big loan and moved, apparently getting out of a rental lease with the $1M building, that CSL no longer "owned". It turns out it was only an "interest only" loan.
The Trust - Science of Mind/Golden - owned and had always owned the building. The people congregants who would write and tithe donations were always the renters. The officers were always agents operating the entertainment for the one-time each Sunday use of the congregants and to pay off a loan made to Science of Mind in Golden, Colorado; probably through an agent called Community for Spiritual Living.
Honoring pets, this service was held outside.
I am mulling this over in order to better understand endorsement and ownership of the Fed in those who use its currency. And to express better my role as First Redeemer. I heard recently that the Albany Remand is also published on Lexis Nexus. Interestingly I have always thought this publication meant that rulings, orders, opinions and decrees of the cause and case have been made available as "authority" - case law. Stare decisis is what prevents appeals justices from practicing law from the bench.
See that? The justices are not allowed to practice law. They are bound to rely upon "authority" - or cases that are shepardized in Lexis Nexus so that they can be easily found and cited by attorneys arguing in appeal.
I am probably confusing you now, how this works into the above point. But if this was simple then the congregants who have their love diverted into the pockets of the alchemists would understand how their ignorance of trust law is working against the fruits of their labor.
Comment