mdtaylor

If I only had one month to live I wouldn't believe it. Not around here...

Not much to explain. I have not seen any use for any ejector in a home setting. Take a fire apparatus which would recognize as a typical fire engine. It has an external power connection that looks like a male end of an extension cord. We plug in the female end of an extension cord to ensure that the batteries are always fully charged. But, we obviously do not want to jump in the truck and run out of the station, lights and sirens blaring, dragging an extension cord behind us ripped in half at the 20 foot mark. Therefore, the trucks have ejectors on the external power plugs to automatically eject the power cord when the ignition is turned on. Is that enough of an explanation for you? As I said, not much use in a home setting, but I have seen them in industrial settings.

Every modern fire apparatus has them. You plug in an extension cord to make sure the batteries stay charged. As soon as you turn the key on it ejects the external power. I have seen them not work...

Faith, Hope, and Charity were the children of St. Wisdom, a Roman widow. the children were beheaded at ages 12, 10, and 9, respectively. Day of celebration is August 1st. Most of the time Faith, Hope, and Charity pendants are combined. Most believe that a heart symbol is that of St. Charity. In the absence of a specific St. Charity pendant could you settle for a heart pendant?

We have created a special group to which a very select few will be placed. That group is "In Remembrance" in honor of those forum members that have passed. At present we have three former members known to have passed on. Those members are: EASteadman RRCanna Atwater Vitki If anyone knows of any others please let an admin know via PM and we will see to it they are remembered here. Mark

It is a matter of fact that the answer to your question is a matter of opinion. Just not yours.

In this case I believe it to be a First Amendment issue and easily arguable in court. Many states have now affirmed the argument that a state cannot recognize one religious denomination while not recognizing another. It's an argument I would love to see...

He doesn't need to. Its his opinion and is entitled to it. What works for Finland may not work here.

The Attorney General is the attorney that represents the government for which he is employed, whether it be local, state, or federal. His opinions are sought by government employees. Sometimes by non government employees to attempt to ascertain how the government stands on a certain issue. My esteemed colleague Dorian and I often disagree on legal issues, as is the case here. Case law, as he calls it, is a collection of opinions written by appellate court judges. In every case involving a panel of judges, as is most appellate courts, there is an opinion of the majority and a dissenting opinion. Occasionally all the judges in a court are unanimous agreement, but more often there is a split. These opinions detail why the court ruled the way they did, both majority and disenting. He seems to call case law 'the law' but I still call it an opinion. Judges often make rulings based on prior rulings of appellate courts. One reason may be the judge is looking for help in making his ruling so as to avoid the possibility of an appeal. Attorneys often cite these opinions in an effort to convince a judge to rule in his favor. Judges are not bound to rule consistent with case law but more often than not, they do. Then there are judges that read a law, read any applicable case law, then decide that the appellate court made their ruling based on laws no longer valid or enforced and will rule completely opposite of the case law. Sometimes that will hold while other times the party in the case that lost will appeal. The appeal process will eventually render a decision either upholding or overruling the lower court decision. If the court upholds the lower court ruling they will write a new opinion which then may be cited and commonly called case law. If there is never a case that goes to appeal then no new opinion is written even if many judges refuse to follow the old opinion. I think we are at a point where, although the opinion of Cramer v Cramer is still on the books today it is outdated and no judge will rule as the appellate court did in 1974. There is just too much other 'case law' from other states that uphold the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. Of course, until some case goes to trial in Virginia, and someone appeals, and the issue is argued, and a new opinion is written there is always that cloud hanging in the minds of people. There are tons of case law in other states that, if a case ever goes to trial in Virginia, the attorney will deluge the court will case law affirming the ULC as having rights in other states and that the Cramer v Cramer ruling should no longer be held valid. Will it ever happen? Not likely. Not until some ULC minister has a church in Virginia and it has enough money to see it through the appellate process. No individual ULC minister that does weddings as an itinerant minister is going to have the money for it. The AG opinion in Virginia specifically states that the court clerks may issue a ULC minister an authorization to perform marriages even after reading and citing Cramer v Cramer. This tells me that the AG would likely not advise a District Attorney to prosecute a ULC minister should he convince a court clerk to issue him an authorization to perform marriages. The opinion also says that the clerk is not required to issue the authorization. If the AG thought that Cramer v Cramer was 'the law' then he would have rendered an opinion that said that the clerk can not, lawfully, issue an authorization to a ULC minister. But, he did not. More than you wanted, I'm sure... more than I wanted to write. I just couldn't let Dorian get the last word in.

I would press on. Opinions of the court are valid for a law in force at the time of the opinion (1974.) Due consideration must be given once the law is changed (as it was in 1981.) The AG opinion is that the court may do so. What ministers in VA must now do is provide a convincing argument for them to do so. Since the AG cited the opinion and still said teh courts may or may not then it appears that opinions are already changing. First, approach them with a 'this is what I am going to do' instead of 'can I do this?' attitude. Have your paperwork in order. Notarized Letter of Good standing dated in the last 30 days. Ordination certificate (original, not a copy.) And a copy of 20-23 where it says ANY DENOMINATION. Having a congregation should almost cinch it... Yeah, someday someone will have to file suit against the state before the law is clarified, but the wheel has to be put in motion. If enough ministers approach the counties with requests then eventually it will happen. And we are going to have to be a denomination of churches instead of a denomination of itenerant ministers .

It is not questionable to me. The clerk of the court may allow it or not. THAT is exactly what the AG opinion says. If a ULC minister provides the documents required by VA Code 20-23 then the clerk may issue an order authorizing the minister to perform marriage ceremonies. What I am asking the poster is, what basis does he have for claiming that NO clerk in Virginia will issue an order to a ULC minister. Specifically, what county?

I wan't aware there was a problem wwith Virginia. What county? There are likely some hoops to jump through but you should be able to qualify, especially if you have a church and are regularly acting as a minister there. If you simply want to be a minister for the sole purpose of doing weddings I don't think you will be sucessful.

I don't even smoke when kids are not present.

I tried poker once. Got slapped.

If you are there on a weekend next you could probably park in the Modesto High School lot, or along side of it. From there you are a short 2-3 blocks from the church.

It is for businesses. Go to the IRS website. Select Businesses. Then Select Business Expenses. You will find Publication 535.

There here is another quote from the same document.

http://www.irs.gov/p.../p535/ch11.html But this topic is not about whether they are or are not presently deductable. This topic is about whether or not they should be. Let's not get into a debate here.

Political contributions are not a business expense. And the only way it would be possible, and this is even a stretch, is that politics IS your business and the expense is to an organization that provides a good or service that is somehow germain to your business.

It will be for unmanned aerial reconnaissance of disaster areas. I got out of flying after my heart attack. Haven't been at the controls since.

On another note...I found my screensaver today... http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2012/02/alex-morgan-body-paint-pic-for-si-swimsuit-issue-impresses/

Waiting for this to be available...

I may have read your statement: as suggesting that income producing properties should not be free from tax. So I will say this: I believe that however a church wants to invest their surplus moneys is not the business of the IRS, until the proceeds jump out of bounds of the stated purposes of the corporation or, are distributed. That is INCOME tax. I can assure you that property taxes by states/counties are not allowing church owned properties not used for religious purposes to go untaxed. I believe the INCOME on investments or DONATIONS should be non taxed, as they are. I believe that properties used exclusively for religious purposes should be non taxed. I believe that income producing properties should be taxed by the state and counties as regular commercial property tax. Does that make it clear?

Just because a church has income producing properties that does not mean they would be violating any 501c status rule. If the income derived from those 'investments' are not distributed to shareholders, and the funds are used in the furtherance of the stated purposes of the corporation then what they are doing is perfectly legal. Many people may not like it, but that is mainly because they do not understand the law.

No. Irrelevant How could you possibly know this. You would have to be their account or lawyer to really know this. The US formed the basis of its laws to specifically not follow other countries laws for good reason. Why change that now?