Detained by the rent a cop for something that is not illegal.

I hope this person brings suit for illegal detention, kidnapping and well anything they can think of. One more reason to know your rights.

Loomis Rent-A-Cops Have Shopper Cuffed, Hauled Away For Taking Photo Of ATM
By Chris Walters, 7:53 PM on Mon May 11 2009, 8,716 views

While Shane was standing in the customer service line at a Seattle REI, he watched two Loomis employees open and change out the cash in an ATM machine. Shane took a photo of them with his iPhone. This apparently freaked out the Loomis guards, the REI security staff, and then the Seattle police, who put handcuffs on Shane, drove him to the police station, and then made him sign a statement that he wouldn't return to a REI store for a year. You might have noticed in that summary that they didn't actually bring any charges against him, which should make it clear to anyone who wants to side with the faux Po-Po that what Shane did wasn't illegal, that the rent-a-cops should be fired, and that REI and Loomis owe Shane a big apology.

Here's just one reason why we think the Loomis guards should be fired, and not just reprimanded: the guard who saw Shane take the picture threatened him with physical harm if Shane didn't obey his commands. Here's the exchange between Shane and him:

Him - When you're done

over here, come talk to me.

Me - No, thanks.

Him - Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.

Me - No, you won't.

Him - I'll call the cops.

Me - I can't stop you.

We think Officer Debra Pelich should apologize just for flat-out being an idiot. Check out her ludicrous "reasoning" below:

We go back and forth about why I took it and don't see it as a problem versus why they think it's somehow threatening their personal safety and their property's safety. They're trying to convince me to give my ID to the Loomis guys to write their report. I'm trying to convince them to go **** themselves that I didn't do anything illegal or otherwise wrong and that Loomis doesn't have any jurisdiction to compel me to give them my ID. Round and round, over and over. Until…

Officer Debra Pelich (#5976):
"Remember 9/11? I saw pictures of those buildings. One time when I was in Florida I was wandering around taking pictures. A security team came up and told me it was a high security restricted area. I wasn't supposed to be taking pictures there. I explained that I didn't know that, was a police officer, showed them my ID and complied with them. We cleared it up and I left."

Me (totally baffled):
"Since you managed to pull the 9/11 card somehow, does that mean that everyone that took a picture of those buildings-"

That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me. They took me out the back door to the loading garage, put me in the back of Seattle Police car #805. We sat there for a few minutes then they took me down to Seattle Police Department West Precinct. I sat in a holding cell for about 30 minutes still in cuffs.

Shane noted that even though everyone was apparently deathly afraid of his super spy skillz, Officer Pelich made no move to hide the security code to the police station garage door when they pulled up—instead she keyed in the number in full view of Shane. Nice work there protecting your fellow officers from terrorists, Pelich.

Shane points out that with just a little bit of Google searching, he came up with 33 different links to data—brochures, photographs, maps—about ATMs and ATM locations, all of it far more sensitive than the noisy 2MP photo he snapped from a distance with his iPhone. He also points out that they didn't ask him to delete the image; it seems like his "crime" was taking an image and then refusing to follow the orders of the Loomis guard and hand over his ID afterwards, even though the Loomis guards had no legal right to demand any information from Shane. What REI could have done was post a sign on premises stating no photography was allowed, or talked to Shane after the incident to explain that they don't allow photos on their property, but that wasn't what happened either. Instead, Shane was carted away in cuffs.

Remember, you can take photos of pretty much any damned thing you want in public (military and national security areas are the exception), including children, buildings, airports, and police officers. Private properties can set their own rules about what kind of photography is allowed, but can't confiscate your film without a court order. If they try to or threaten you with arrest, they're more likely to be breaking the law than you are.

Bert Krages, an attorney who wrote a concise summary of rights called The Photographer's Rights (from which we pulled out the info in the above paragraph), points out that most public photo altercations are started by security officers or employees who don't know the law and who just assume that taking photos is somehow illegal. He suggests if a rent-a-cop becomes "pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile," call the police. But who do you call when the police are also dumb and easily frightened, and more likely to protect private businesses instead of private citizens?

If you know of a good attorney in Seattle who can help his cause, please let him know at twitter.com/veganstraightedge

"Of ATMs, iPhones… and 9/11?" [I Am Shane Becker] (Thanks to Aaron!)
(Photo: veganstraightedge)

http://consumerist.com/5249853/loomis-rent+a+cops-have-shopper-cuffed-hauled-away-over-atm-photo

Humm so, if I live in Texas and I see a company dumping chemicals upstream from my house I can take out the gun the shoot and kill the waste operator or the company president? After all they are a danger to me.

Or if I see someone drop a pen I might trip on and fall I guess I could shoot that offender too.

Oh, maybe I should shoot the gray haired lady driving too slow on the freeway because she represents a threat to me and the other drivers on the road too.

Your argument is crap.

Now...had the couple been dynamiting the levee as flood waters approached then I suppose you could argue that the couple were protecting their lives and property.

Here is one spiffy thing about Texas...if there is any justice that man and his wife can die too at the hands of the state. Let's see if Texas has the...well...let's see

haha They are all mangina's!

Age limits?

Oh...let's not talk about personal and parental responsibility.

So, a seven year old was shot on public property.

He is dead.

And look at all this...how can anyone justify this act?

Makes me want to throw up.

Comparing this disgusting cowardly act to a situation where someone was actually in fear of their lives or endangered in any way is obscene.

Here is what is wrong with the gun debate. On one side are extremist who want to take everyone's guns away and on the other are extremist who think anything anyone does with any gun is okay.

Thanks for the replies.

I am looking for something I have seen here regarding allegiance of US military personnel that mentions taking orders from or allegiance too the United Nations.

It may have appeared here in a thread that someone posted here that referenced soldiers being asked if they would arrest or fire on fellow citizens.

I clearly remember it was a numbered list and mentioned the UN.

Not the UCMJ.

There have been a couple posts regarding what current members of the military swear to these days Someone posted a list of I believe appox. 45 articles or sentences that they agree too.

Is it possible that someone can repost it for me please?

The last one in the list spoke to following the orders of the United Nations.

Thanks in advance to anyone who locates this info.

A seven year old child?

Off roading a popular pastime?

Public property?

Possible erosion...now there is a reason to shoot and kill.

So, not torturing put's America in more danger?

Put on your boots Ladies and Gentlemen.

One hundred days into the administration...

As much as I hate wiki...here is what we will surely see.

Need I say more?

False Flag Terrorism

"False flag terrorism" occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy's flag was hung instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, it was called a "false flag" attack.

There are many examples of false flag attacks through history. For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own parliament, the Reichstag, and blamed that fire on others. The Reichstag fire was the watershed event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. Click here for verification.

The Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this short essay and this report). And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group in order to justify a crackdown on that group. Muslim governments also play this game. For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president claimed that their government had a role in the Bali bombings.

This sounds nuts, right? You've never heard of this "false flag terrorism," where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right? And you are skeptical of the statements discussed above? Please take a look at these historical quotes:

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

What about the U.S.?

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the Northwoods documents states: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

What about Al-Qaeda?

You might think Al-Qaeda is different. It is very powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Consider this Los Angeles Times article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled The Power of Nightmares, which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative."

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but had – at the last minute – cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report.

Have you heard that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11? Did you know that years after 9/11 the FBI first stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11? The agency apparently still does not have any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (see also this partial confirmation by the Washington Post). And did you see the statement by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan?

Have you heard that the anthrax attacks – which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists – used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong." For more on this, see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one).

It is also interesting that the only Congress-members mailed anthrax letters were key Democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing PATRIOT Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of Congress into passing that act without even reading it. And though it may be a coincidence, White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

Even General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism, yet in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" (the audio is here).

Why Does This Matter?

Please read what the following highly respected people are saying:

Former prominent Republican U.S. Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens. Current Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law." He also said a contrived "Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." Former National Security Adviser Brzezinski told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

The former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who is called the "Father of Reaganomics" and is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging 'terrorist' attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda? ... If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the 'unitary executive' at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of 'national emergency' and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance."

(see also this even stronger statement).

Retired 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefings and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation – big violent explosions of some kind – we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even terrorist events in order to rally people behind the flag.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government." Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, I believe the president will get what he wants. And what he wants is a new Patriot Act, one that will make the current Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights."

Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction. He is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government. And British Parliament Member George Galloway stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

The abundance of reliable information in this essay suggests that not only has the U.S. in the past conducted false flag operations, but there is a possibility that 9/11 involved some element of this deceit, and a future false flag operation cannot be ruled out. Let us spread this news to all who care so that we might build the critical mass necessary to stop these secret operations and work together for a more caring civil society.


Special Note: This essay is an edited version of the well researched document available at http://pledgeforamerica.com/2.html. For a collection of reliable, verifiable information suggesting that 9/11 may have been a form of false flag operation, please see the 9/11 Information Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/911information.

hummm

Isn't anything like a burger served with anything other than ketchup and or Miracle Whip on white bread elitist?

This speaks volumes.

If anyone is listening.

Nice policy...one that leaves an obviously criminal seven year old child in critical condition.


Couple shoot four mistakenly thought trespassing
Article from: The Sunday Telegraph
May 10, 2009 12:00am

A COUPLE is accused of opening fire and wounding four people - including a 7-year-old boy and a girl, 5, who they mistakenly thought were trespassing on their property.

The victims, who were off-roading near a residential area about 64 kilometres northeast of Houston, were struck with shotgun pellets after stopping their vehicles near the Trinity River so the children could go to the toilet, said Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor.

Off-roading is a hobby that involves driving vehicles on unpaved areas, such as fields or riverbeds.
Police said resident Sheila Muhs, 45, fired once with a 12-gauge shotgun then handed it to her husband, Gayle Muhs, also 45.

DeFoor said Sheila Muhs called a police emergency dispatcher and said, "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.''

The Muhs have been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and remained in jail.

The Muhs don't have an attorney yet to comment on their case, DeFoor said.

Donald Coffey Jr., the seven-year-old boy, was shot in the head and was in critical condition.

Patrick Cammack, a friend of the boy's father who was driving in a separate vehicle, also was shot in the head and was in critical condition.

Donald Coffey Sr., 36, had a pellet wound in his right shoulder. His daughter, 5-year-old Destiny, was shot in the elbow but was in good condition.

After the shootings, Coffey's wife took the wheel and drove the family's sport utility vehicle to a nearby fire station, where the victims were taken by helicopter to a hospital.

DeFoor said the shots were fired from about 36 metres away. DeFoor said the victims were unarmed.

"The levee is not private property, it belongs to the subdivision,'' said DeFoor. "Even if they were on the levee, it's not a shootable offense. It's ludicrous to shoot someone for going to the bathroom on the side of the road.''

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25455992-5006003,00.html

Please visit the site for a picture of the shooters and the sign in their front yard which reads, "TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT SURVIVORS. WILL BE RESHOT!! SMILE I WILL"

Or should I say the illusion of privacy.

Wisconsin up-holds the police decision to attach a GPS tracking device to citizens cars without a warrant...even citizens who are not suspects in any criminal matter. The ACLU objects to this and is fighting the policy.

Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police

By RYAN J. FOLEY | Associated Press Writer
2:42 PM CDT, May 7, 2009

MADISON, Wis. - Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody's movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

However, the District 4 Court of Appeals said it was "more than a little troubled" by that conclusion and asked Wisconsin lawmakers to regulate GPS use to protect against abuse by police and private individuals.

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights -- even if the drivers aren't suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means "police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone's public movements with a GPS device," he wrote.

One privacy advocate said the decision opened the door for greater government surveillance of citizens. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials called the decision a victory for public safety because tracking devices are an increasingly important tool in investigating criminal behavior.

The ruling came in a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, a Madison man who was under investigation for stalking. Police got a warrant to put a GPS on his car and secretly attached it while the vehicle was parked in Sveum's driveway. The device recorded his car's movements for five weeks before police retrieved it and downloaded the information.

The information suggested Sveum was stalking the woman, who had gone to police earlier with suspicions. Police got a second warrant to search his car and home, found more evidence and arrested him. He was convicted of stalking and sentenced to prison.

Sveum, 41, argued the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. He argued the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.

The court disagreed. The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.

Even though the device followed Sveum's car to private places, an officer tracking Sveum could have seen when his car entered or exited a garage, Lundsten reasoned. Attaching the device was not a violation, he wrote, because Sveum's driveway is a public place.

"We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant," he wrote.

Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn't needed, he added.

Larry Dupuis, legal director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, said using GPS to track someone's car goes beyond observing them in public and should require a warrant.

"The idea that you can go and attach anything you want to somebody else's property without any court supervision, that's wrong," he said. "Without a warrant, they can do this on anybody they want."

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, which argued in favor of the warrantless GPS tracking, praised the ruling but would not elaborate on its use in Wisconsin.

David Banaszynski, president of the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, said his department in the Milwaukee suburb of Shorewood does not use GPS. But other departments might use it to track drug dealers, burglars and stalkers, he said.

A state law already requires the Department of Corrections to track the state's most dangerous sex offenders using GPS. The author of that law, Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, said the decision shows "GPS tracking is an effective means of protecting public safety."

This article features British troops but I wonder what the stats are for American service women?

Is it fair for a woman to be able to leave her duty station because she is pregnant? Is it fair for the service to ask women serving in the field to use birth control?

As anyone who has served in the military can tell you, when you are serving your body does not belong to you and is instead government property. For instance, getting a sunburn so bad that it interferes with your job while off duty can mean disciplinary action against you. So there is precedent for requiring birth control.

So, what do you all think?

AT LEAST 133 Brit servicewomen have been sent home from Afghanistan and Iraq after getting pregnant.

The Daily Star Sunday has learned 102 of Our Girls returned early from Iraq between January 1, 2003 and February 28 of this year because they were expecting.

And at least 31 female squaddies were fl own home from Afghanistan for the same reason.

Of those, 50 returned early from Iraq or Afghanistan between April 1, 2007 and February 28, 2009.

A total of 5,600 women have been sent to war so far and the Ministry of Defence admitted there may be even more cases which have not been recorded.

Pregnant women cannot be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, nor can they go to sea in the Royal Navy.

The shock numbers were released by the Ministry of Defence after a Freedom of Information request by the Daily Star Sunday.

Some will have become pregnant before leaving Britain and others while on their mid-tour two-week rest and recuperation break.

But many will have conceived by romping while on operations – potentially breaking forces’ rules.

Sex between servicemen and women in Iraq or Afghanistan could lead to misconduct charges if it caused a drop in military effi ciency.

Some observers say sex on tour could not be stopped. Charles Heyman, editor of the British Army Guide, said: “The average age on operations will be between 21 and 23 and at that age there will be lapses.”

There are 17,620 women in the forces, making up 9.4% of the total.

But critics have long argued they are physically weaker than men and that sexual tension would upset small units.

Women are currently banned from infantry units and any role where they would “close with and kill the enemy” – as well as from submarines and several diver roles.

Yet women have fi lled more front-line jobs than ever before in Iraq and Afghanistan, including combat medics, fi ghter and helicopter pilots.

Female Harrier pilots have bombed the Taliban in Afghanistan while in Iraq, medic L/Cpl Michelle Norris became the first woman to win the Military Cross after braving sniper fire to save her shot vehicle commander.

The two wars have also claimed the lives of six forces’ women.

An MoD spokesman said: “All our forces are expected to behave within the Armed Forces Code of Conduct. “If women become or discover they are pregnant on operations they are returned to the UK at the fiist opportunity for their own wellbeing and to preserve effectiveness.”
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/80115/Army-girls-caught-in-battle-of-the-bulge/

The Great Lakes Water Compact is a good first step in protecting this important resource but only a first step.

For the west I say...Hands Off!

Poor urban planning? Sorry about your luck.

More than one poster here has said,"What do we need Michigan for?" soon...you will see. This resource belongs to all the Great Lakes states and to Canada and with an eye on the mistakes in water management in past and the future the compact sets out to protect this resource.

This article from The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a link to the PDF of the compact for those who are interested.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/04/great_lakes_water_compact_weig.html

Fresh water...a resource that is in growing demand has long been an object of debate in the American west. As a citizen of the state of Michigan nestled in the center of the great lakes fresh water issues have always been important to me. As peoples thirst for fresh water grows and the demand grows these issues become even more important.

Here's a story of a Colorado woman who found out the rain that fell on her roof was not hers to use.

What do you think?

All she wants is the rain water that lands on her roof. She lives with her husband and two children in a solar-powered home in rural San Miguel County. Committed to promoting sustainability, Kris Holstrom grows organic produce year-round, most of which is sold to local restaurants and farmers markets. On a mesa at 9,000 feet elevation, however, water other than precipitation is hard to come by.

So Kris did what thousands of farmers before her have done: She applied for a water right. Except instead of seeking to divert water from a stream, she sought to collect rain that fell upon the roof of her house and greenhouse. To her surprise, the state engineer opposed her application, arguing that other water users already had locked up the right to use the rain. The Colorado Water Court agreed, and Kris was denied the right to store a few barrels of rainwater. If she persisted with rain harvesting, she would be subject to fines of up to $500 per day.

How could this happen?

Like other western states, Colorado water law follows the prior appropriation doctrine, of which the core principle is “first in time, first in right.” The first person to put water to beneficial use and comply with other legal requirements obtains a water right superior to all later claims to that water.

The right to appropriate enshrined in Colorado’s Constitution has been so scrupulously honored that nearly all of the rivers and streams in Colorado are overappropriated, which means there is often not enough water to satisfy all the claims to it. When this happens, senior water-right holders can “call the river” and cut off the flow to those who filed for water rights later, so-called “juniors.”

Overappropriated rivers are not unique to Colorado. Most of the watercourses in the West are fully or overappropriated. Yet other western states allow or even encourage rainwater harvesting. The obstacle for aspiring rainwater harvesters in Colorado is not the state constitution. It speaks only of the right to divert the “unappropriated waters of any natural stream.”

The problem arises because Colorado’s Supreme Court has given an expansive interpretation to the term “natural stream” and coupled that with a presumption that all diffused waters ultimately will migrate to groundwater or surface streams. And because most streams are overappropriated, collecting rainwater is seen as diverting the water of those who already hold rights to it.

How is a roof a “tributary”?

Applying this legal fiction to Kris Holstrom’s effort to grow food at home, the state engineer argued that her roofs were “tributary” to the San Miguel River. Because the San Miguel River is “on call” during the summer months, Kris’s rain catchment would, the state engineer argued, “cause injury to senior water rights.” The court agreed, even though there was no proof that the water dripping from Kris’s roof would ever make it to the river.

If Kris wanted to collect rainwater for her gardens, she’d have to pursue an augmentation plan and convince the state engineer and water court that she could replace 100 percent of the precipitation captured. Not only did she have to return to the stream every drop of rain she collected, she would have to pay for a complex engineering analysis to prove that her augmentation water would return to the stream in a timeframe mimicking natural conditions.

She didn’t even try. “The farm doesn’t make enough money to pay for an engineering analysis,” she said. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine a situation where it would make financial sense to harvest free rainwater that has to be replaced with another source of water.

The notion that you can’t utilize the rain falling on your roof might be easier to accept if you really were interfering with senior water rights, but in many situations it just isn’t true. In Kris’s case, most of the rain she collected would have evaporated or been transpired by native vegetation long before it ever reached the San Miguel River.

Hardly a drop in the bucket

A recent study commissioned by Douglas County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board has confirmed that very little precipitation that falls on an undeveloped site ever returns to the stream system. The study focused on an area in northwest Douglas County, where the average annual precipitation is 17.5 inches. In dry years, 100 percent of the annual precipitation is lost to evaporation and transpiration by vegetation. In wet years, a maximum of 15 percent of the precipitation returns to the stream system. On average, just 3 percent of annual precipitation ever returns to the stream.

Despite this hydrological reality, Colorado law requires anyone wanting to use rainwater catchment to send to the stream an amount of water equivalent to 100 percent of all precipitation harvested. That is, in effect, a gift to prior appropriators paid for by folks trying to live more sustainably.

An effort to address this problem stalled in the Colorado legislature this past session. A bill by state Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, would have allowed rural residents not on a municipal water system to store rainwater in cisterns up to 5,000 gallons. The bill also would have authorized 10 pilot projects where new housing developments could collect rainwater from rooftops and other impermeable surfaces. But even this tepid effort to update water law was sent to committee for further study.

The committee should use this study period to produce a bill that takes a more aggressive approach to water sustainability. The first thing is to make sure the benefits of rainwater harvesting are not dissipated into oversized yards filled with water-guzzling bluegrass. A serious effort would limit harvested rainwater to food production and Xeriscaped yards.

A resource down the drain

Even greater benefits could be achieved by promoting wide-scale rainwater harvesting in developed areas. Traditional land development practices typically direct runoff from roofs and other impervious surfaces to pollutant-laden streets and parking lots, and then toward storm drains.

Both of these problems would be ameliorated if all buildings were equipped to catch rainwater for later use. Additional benefits could be realized if the water collected from rooftops was brought inside for nonpotable uses. Rainwater that would otherwise be lost to evaporation or storm drains could be used in toilets and washing machines, and then sent to the treatment plant, thereby bringing more water into municipal water systems.

Colorado is expecting 3 million new residents by 2035. At the same time, climate change may be conspiring to exacerbate the water woes of all of the states served by the Colorado River. Rainwater harvesting is no panacea to deal with water shortages, but it should be part of a multifaceted approach to a looming crisis.

Fully utilizing precipitation where it falls reduces the demand on other water resources, leaving more water in streams or aquifers. The most important benefit of a legal change stimulating wide-scale rainwater harvesting may be its fostering of a new water ethic. People who make a personal effort to collect and utilize rain are less likely to waste water or tolerate public policies that allow waste by others, such as inefficient irrigation or inappropriate residential landscaping.

When people are maintaining gutters and cisterns to flush their toilets or grow their gardens, they are more likely to appreciate the importance and scarcity of water. They might finally say no to headlong growth that shows no regard for long-term availability of future water supplies.

Colorado should embrace rainwater harvesting. The legal fiction that all rain is tributary to a stream should be abandoned. Others should not be allowed to own the rain that falls on your roof before you can use it for reasonable domestic uses.

http://www.wildlifemanagementpro.com/2008/07/09/water-rights-and-rain/

Gonna make some deviled eggs this weekend!

What sort of definition are you seeking? Each of our personal definitions? Or perhaps a legal definition?

There's a paper here you might like: http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm

An exert:

The analysis included in this paper of the United States Internal Revenue Service criteria for determining whether an organization is a "church" for purposes of tax exemption also serves to develop the definitional issue and, in particular, to explore the dilemma of developing narrow definitional boundaries for religion.

According to one American court, a "religious organization" is merely "an organized association of persons dedicated to religious purposes." Therefore, if the organization is animated by religious belief, it cannot, by definition, fail to be a religious organization. Ordinarily, however, the American government and the courts have been reluctant to examine the content of religious belief.

Neither this court, nor any branch of this government, will consider the merits or fallacies of religion. Nor will the court compare the beliefs, dogmas and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older,

more established religion. Nor will the court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. Were the court to do so, it would impinge upon the guarantee of the First Amendment.

Judges and IRS officials are "not oracles of theological verity, and the Founders did not intend for them to be declarants of religious orthodoxy." It is obvious, however, that proper application of the tax laws respecting religious organizations requires a definition, or at least guidelines, meeting constitutional standards. The first amendment would indeed become "a limitless excuse for avoiding all unwanted legal obligations" if all claims to religious protection were accepted merely because they are asserted. Therefore, at least a working definition of religion is needed, so that minimum standards can be discerned and applied to "religious organizations" claiming tax-exempt status. Attempts to develop a working definition of "religion" in the American context must begin with the language of the United States Constitution, the intent of the framers, and interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Humm why isn't this a political topic?

After all, those who object to gay marriage are always bringing up the Bible and God and all that.

I am confused...should future posts about marriage and the law be placed in the general religion forum?

Did you write it?

HEY!

Didn't you get the memo?

Bible thumpers who say the Bible is the word of God don't follow the Bible but instead pick and choose which bits are best tailored to their brand of hate.