Source: http://americanpoliticalphilosophy.blogspot.com/2017/01/
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 07:04:39
Document Index: 675016337

Matched Legal Cases: ['§683', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§4', '§67', '§5202', '§2', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§5202', '§12', '§12', '§12', '§12']

Preserving The American Political Philosophy: January 2017
CHAPTER THREE OF PUBLIC PRIVATE RELATIONSHIPS & THE NEW OWNERS OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION GOVERNOR
LONGLEY AND THE ARCHITECTS OF TRANSFORMATION In 1969 the Home Rule Amendment was added to the Maine
Constitution. It provides to the inhabitants of the municipality, authority to
amend the municipal charter and to run public referendums for economic
development purposes. Maine Constitution Municipal Home Rule Section 1. Power of municipalities to amend
their charters. The inhabitants of any municipality shall have the power to
alter and amend their charters on all matters, not prohibited by Constitution
or general law, which are local and municipal in character. The Legislature
shall prescribe the procedure by which the municipality may so act. Section 2. Construction of buildings for
industrial use. For the purposes of fostering, encouraging and assisting the
physical location, settlement and resettlement of industrial and manufacturing
enterprises within the physical boundaries of any municipality, the registered
voters of that municipality may, by majority vote, authorize the issuance of
notes or bonds in the name of 26 the municipality for the purpose of purchasing land and
interests therein or constructing buildings for industrial use, to be leased or
sold by the municipality to any responsible industrial firm or corporation. We saw in the previous chapter that Article IV Part
Third; Section 14 of the Maine Constitution grants the Legislature the
authority to charter municipal corporations. The power to amend the charter of
a municipal corporation belongs to the inhabitants of the municipality as
granted by Municipal Home Rule. The Constitution instructs the Legislature to
provide the process by which the inhabitants of the municipality can amend
their municipal charter. Section 2 of the Home Rule Amendment was originally
added to the Constitution in 1962 as section 8A of Article IX of the Maine
Constitution dealing with equal distribution of taxation. Section 2 requires an
approval vote by registered voters of a municipality to establish municipal
authority to issue bonds for economic development within the geographical area
of the municipality, the cost of issuing the bond is apportioned among the
municipal taxpayers. Maine Constitution
Article IX Section 8 Taxation All taxes upon real and personal estate, assessed by
authority of this State, shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to
the just value thereof. Article IX Section 8: Taxation, was relocated to
Section 2 of the Home Rule section of the Constitution in the 1973
codification: This provision was added to the Constitution as section 8A of
Article IX in 1962 (Amend.LXXXVII) and was relocated under the 1973
codification. Its original placement highlighted the intent to restrict the
scope of Article IX, section 8, which mandates that all taxes be apportioned
and assessed equally. If general obligation bonds were used so that a
particular industry got back tax revenue in the form of aid, this could be
equivalent to an unequal tax rate and hence in derogation of section 8. The Maine Constitution: A Reference manual
by Marshall J Tinkle The Home Rule Amendment allows for taxation to be used
to assist private economic development but only within the municipality and not
without the consent of voters of the municipality. When economic development bonds, sold as job creation
initiatives, are issued by the state, the benefit is distributed across the
entire state disproportionately to the just and measurable value of the
benefit. In example the just value of bonds spent for economic
development within the physical boundaries of the municipal corporation of the
Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority is zero for the inhabitants of the
municipal corporation of the Washington County Development Authority. Furthermore, the value of state bonds appropriated to
the municipality of MRRA is vast in comparison to bonds appropriated to
Washington County Development Authority, which are non-existent and have a
value of zero.[1] LURC In 1969 the Maine people voted to add Municipal Home
Rule to the Maine Constitution. As that was happening the Maine Legislature was
creating the Land Use Regulation Commission. [LURC is philosophically opposed to Municipal Home Rule.
While the Maine people were voting for municipal sovereignty, the Legislature
was installing a state appointed board to regulate every use of property and
infringing upon private property rights in Maine's unorganized territories. The
rhetoric establishing LURC uses a wide range of public interests to cloak a
totalitarian takeover of individual liberty in the wild and natural territory
of Northern Maine: Amazingly the Legislature did not deem their newly appropriated
powers to be “an essential government function” perhaps because the Maine
Legislature was not chartering a corporation and did not need to reconcile what
they were doing with Article IV Part Third Section 14 of the Maine
Constitution. MAINE LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION Department of Agriculture, Conservation and
Forestry Division of Land Use
Planning, Permitting and Compliance §683 Purpose and Scope The Legislature finds that it is
desirable to extend principles of sound planning, zoning and development to the
unorganized and reorganized townships of the State: To preserve public health,
safety and general welfare; to support and
encourage Maine's
natural resource-based economy and strong environmental protections; to
encourage appropriate residential, recreational, commercial and industrial land
uses; to honor the rights and participation of residents and property owners in
the unorganized and deorganized areas while recognizing the unique value of
these lands and waters to the State; to prevent residential, recreational,
commercial and industrial uses detrimental to the long term health, use and
value of these areas and to Maine's natural resource-based economy; to
discourage the intermixing of incompatible industrial, commercial, residential
and recreational activities; to prevent the development in these areas of
substandard structures or structures located unduly proximate to waters or
roads; to prevent the despoliation, pollution and detrimental uses of the water
in these areas; and to conserve ecological and natural values. The Legislature
declares it to be in the public interest, for the public benefit, for the good
order of the people of this State and for the benefit of the property owners
and residents of the unorganized and deorganized townships of the State, to
encourage the wellplanned and well-managed multiple use, including conservation,
of land and resources and to encourage and facilitate regional economic
viability. The Legislature acknowledges the importance of these areas in the
continued vitality of the State and to local economies. Finally, the
Legislature desires to encourage the appropriate use of these lands by the
residents of Maine and visitors in pursuit of outdoor recreation activities,
including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, boating, hiking and camping [2]
It is often said that there are two Maines. There is
rural Maine and urban Maine, there is northern Maine and southern Maine, there
is the Maine of long rooted local families and the community of new arrivals
and summer residents. There is the upper income Maine and lower income Maine
and there is the Maine governed by its Constitution. town halls and public
referendums, and Maine governed public private relationships and unelected
boards. Home Rule vs Board Rule In 1976 Governor Longley invited the heads of Maine
Industry to create a report on developing legislation for state wide economic
development management. .John M Daigle was president of Casco Bank Trust Co and Casco Northern Corporation. Perry Hudson was the
general manager of New England Telephone. Phillip W Hussey, Jr, owner of Hussey Seating Company. P. Andrews Nixon was the
head of the largest distributor of residential heating fuel in New England and
the operator of the Dead River chain of 20 c-stores in New England. N Stowel Junior was the
CEO, President of United Timber Corp, a family owned forest products company
with multiple subsidiaries including wood products manufacturing, saw milling operations and extensive timberlands making it one of Maine's larger businesses.
James L Moody Sr is credited on the report, but it
seems more likely that it would have been James L Moody Jr. The senior Moody
was a teacher, while the younger Moody was the chief executive of Hannaford for
19 years and thereafter a board member for another five years. Under Moody,
Hannaford grew from a small Maine wholesaler to a $2.9-billion regional grocery
The newly formed board proposed to
change by statutory law, the municipal public referendums which seven years
earlier had been added to the Maine Constitution as Section 2 of the Home Rule Amendment.
The Report- Governor's Task Force for
Economic Redevelopment, Recommended Legislation for an Economic Development
Program -110th Congress, calls for the elimination of local referendums on
municipal bond issues with precise language:
2: eliminate the requirement for a local referendum on
municipal bond issues.14'
According to Marshall J Tinkle, previous to 1962's
Maine Municipal Industrial Buildings Bonds Referendum, legislation calling for
bonds to be issued for industrial purposes was declared unconstitutional
because it was not for a public use. As noted in the literature, the amendment (Home Rule, Section
2) makes it clear that general obligations may now be used to assist private
industry for certain purposes" this
section applies only to general obligations of municipalities and not to forms
of financing that do not create municipal debt or liability" The Maine Constitution:A Reference manual by
Marshall J Tinkle A New Form of Entitlements The Governor’s Task
Force report recommended that two complimentary corporations be chartered
by the Legislature, The Maine Capital Corporation and the Maine Development
Corporation. The statute chartering the Maine Capital Corporation15
included the following rationalization: The Legislature finds that one of the limiting factors on the
capital for the long-term needs of Maine businesses and entrepreneurs. In
particular, the lack of equity capital to finance new business ventures and the
14 Governor’s Task Force for Economic
Redevelopment-1976 15http://www.preservingtheamericanpoliticalphilosophy.com/1977_PL_c531_Maine%20Capital_Co
rporation.pdf expansion or recapitalization of existing businesses is
critical. This lack of equity capital may prevent worthwhile businesses from
being established; it may also force businesses to use debt capital where
equity capital would be more appropriate. This creates debt service demands
which a new or expanding venture may not be able to meet successfully, causing
the venture to fail because of the lack of availability of the appropriate kind
of capital. This impediment to the development and expansion of viable
capital income and resource underutilization. By restraining economic
development, it sustains burdensome pressures on State Government to provide
services to those citizens who are unable to provide for themselves. To help correct this situation, it is appropriate to use the
strengthening the state's economy. The rational uses a conventional
truth that few will argue against, that without capital, it is difficult to
grow a business, but the solution disavows the rule of law of the Maine
Constitution by which It is not lawful to appropriate public resources in
service of private profit motives with there being an exception for economic
development at the municipal level requiring a public referendum which approves
it. Home Rule aligns the community which benefits from private industry
development with the responsibility for the burden of cost and authority to
approve it. The Maine Capital Corporation In 1977 a tax credit for investing in the Maine Capital
Corporation is codified as §5202.
The statute directly following it is §5202-A, which exempts small business
investment companies from taxation. 1977 §5202. Credit for investment in The Maine
Capital Corporation (REPEALED) SECTION HISTORY 1977, c. 531, §4 (NEW). 1981, c. 364, §67 (RP). 1977
§5202-A. Small business investment companies exempt Corporate small business investment
companies, licensed under the United States Small Business Investment Act of
1958, as amended, and commercially domiciled in Maine and doing business
primarily in Maine, shall be exempt from taxation under this Part. [1977, c.
640, §2 (NEW).] As currently found in Maine statutes §5202 does not say that the tax credit is a refundable,
meaning that if no taxes are owed the capitalist is due a refund on his
investments from the taxpayers, but since §5202-A is a 100% tax exemption for
investment companies investing in Maine small businesses, §5202 makes little
sense unless it is a refundable tax credit. According to the United States Congressional Budget
Office, refundable tax credits first made their appearance in 1975[3] when inflation began a
radical escalation which has continued ever since.
A refundable tax credit means that when no taxes are
owed, the taxpayers owe the credit holder a cash payment. The Maine Capital
Corporation was set up to issue tax credits in §5202. At the same time small business investment companies in general
were made exempt from taxation in §5202-A That effectively meant that Maine
taxpayers would be required to refund the Maine Capital corporation’s
investments in Maine small businesses to the size of the 50% tax credit but the
Maine Capital Corporation would not be required to reward proportionately
valued stockholder shares as would be expected from an investment company
functioning under general law. §5202 chartered a corporation as a special act
of legislation written exclusively for the Maine Capital Corporation. It is
worth noting that in the structure of the statutes the general law §5202-A is a
subsection of the special act §5202. Today the special act has been repealed
but §5202-A, the general law which was originally a subsection of §5202 has never
been repealed. Although It was originally arranged as a subsection of the Maine
Capital Corporation §5202-A is worded as a general law governing all investment
companies in Maine that invest in Maine based small businesses and exempting
all from taxation. Today refundable tax credits are
prolific throughout the Maine economic development statutes. The media and
proponents usually use the simplified term “tax credits” The arrangement of §5202 & §5202-A
has been replaced so that subsequent tax exemptions are codified independently
but the relationship between tax credits and tax exemptions still applies. By
arranging the tax exemptions and tax credits independently of the other, the
relationship is less obvious to the unsophisticated observer. Surrendering
the Power of Taxation? The two 1977 complimentary statutes are the template
for veiling direct cash transfers from the taxpayers to private corporations as
tax credits. Before Section 2 of the Home Rule Amendment was a part
of the Home Rule Amendment, it was placed in Article IX Section 8. Marshal J
Tinkle explains why: If general obligation bonds were used so that a particular
industry got back tax revenue in the form of aid, this could be equivalent to
an unequal tax rate and hence in derogation of section 8. [4] Whether a tax credit is really a tax credit or whether
it is a cash payment, it is using the tax system as a form of aid for a
particular industry which prior to Municipal Home Rule was determined by the
courts to be the equivalency of an unequal tax rate and a derogation of Article
IX Section 8 Taxation. Home Rule allows municipalities to use bonds for
industrial development and is intended only for municipalities. When the state
issues tax credits they benefit special interests while the responsibility for
the debt is distributed generally across the entire state, making for an
unequal tax rate. For communities and individuals not included in the state's
“targeted sector”, state management of economic development is the equivalency
of taxation without representation. Targeted sector industries and communities
benefit at the expense of everyone else. When the legislature refers to the
jobs created by this system as “quality jobs” and those quality jobs are based
on income and worker benefits negotiated by the state in return for
redistribution of the taxpayer’s money to the private owners of the means of
production, it adds insult to injury. When tax payer subsidized upper end jobs
are defined as “quality jobs” by the Maine Legislature, every other job not
meeting the income and benefits negotiated by the state are by default jobs
lacking in quality or worth according to standards established by the Maine Legislature.
Since a “quality job” as defined by the Maine legislature must provide a higher
than average income for the area, that means that all jobs providing an average
or below average income for the area are by default jobs of no worthwhile
quality to the Maine Legislature and administration. Is it a wonder that the
middle class has been withering away in Maine since the Maine Legislature
declared that centrally managing the economy is an essential government
function? The legislative classification of jobs measured exclusively by
materialistic values as “quality jobs” does a disservice to the people of
Maine, as if to say that if you work and earn your own living you are not a
quality person processing anything of value to society or anyone unless you are
making more than most of the people in Maine, and that means that over half the
people in Maine are not quality people involved in quality work. Is there
hidden in the language of “quality jobs” “creative class” and “world class
whatever’ a massive inferiority complex operative in the overlord class which
they attempt to resolve over the rest of society? This is a detrimental
attitude for the overlords to maintain, in my humblest opinion- and in addition
it is not a sound economic theory. Certainly, a society with a thriving middle
class provides economic opportunities for all and because of that reduces
public welfare programs and creates the possibility of dignity for all, no
matter what their position on the economic ladder. Compliance with the Maine Constitution Section 9, Power
of Taxation is also in question when the state issues a tax credit to investors
for investing in a private corporation, which is transformed through the
application of tax exemptions into a public debt owed to the private entity. The
question becomes Is this a surrender of the power of taxation? Maine Constitution Article IX. General Provisions. Section 9 Power of
taxation The
taxation. Reversing Public-Private Roles in Taxation Through refundable tax credits a role reversal takes
place within the publicprivate relationship in which the public becomes the
party owing taxes to the private sector. The Legislature, purportedly the
public servants, codified private and special interests into law, permitting a
transference of the power of taxation to occur via the chameleon identity of
public-private relationships. Within that shadow government, the Legislature
has become the servants and partners of private interests granted special
access to taxpayer money used to capitalize the public-private ownership of the
means of production, this is sold to the public as “job creation” initiatives.
In this concept of job creation, first the taxpayers must capitalize privately
owned means of production in order to generate wage earning jobs for a special
faction of taxpayers. The architects of Maine's transformation justified
their moves by pointing at the burden of providing assistance to the most
unfortunate in society A new taxpayer burden was then created in the form of
corporate welfare, an opportunities entitlement class, while general welfare
which distributes only rations and not opportunities, continued to expand.
Those entitled to opportunities are glorified as “the creative class” Those who
are relying on rations for survival are commonly and collectively denigrated as
never do well lazy drug addicts. Since the public is made aware of the burden
of general welfare, while corporate welfare is cloaked in complimentary
language, general welfare recipients are made into the scape goat of the entire
welfare system but it is not until the institutionalization of a centrally
managed economy organized through public private relationships capitalized by
corporate welfare that inflation soars and the middle class – the opportunity
zone for the bottom - starts slipping away. The burden for both welfare systems
lands on the middle class – the backbone of a free enterprise system, which
promotes opportunities at all levels of the economy, not only within a
legislatively targeted sector and thrives within a free enterprise system
diametrically opposed to an economy centrally managed by the state. REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TAXATION ON ITS STUDY OF THE MAINE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION 11OTH LEGISLATURE COMMITTEE ON TAXATION (1981)[5] Tax Consequences Tax factors related to MCC[6] were
detailed on pp. 34-35 of the Offering Memorandum (see Appendix I). The major provision
that would affect State tax revenues was the Maine income tax credit of fifty
percent spread over a minimum of five years, available to investors in MCC's
stock. We have no knowledge of which investors have availed themselves of this
credit and to what degree. We do know it ls instrumental in mobilizing the
capital, as intended by the Legislature This tax credit is capped by a number of features, all
included in the legislation. At a maximum it
would be $500,000 spread out over at least five
(5) years. As MCC makes more investments, with positive economic consequences,
tax benefits to the State will accrue which sooner or later will surpass the
costs. [7]
It is astounding that the Tax Report says “We have no
knowledge of which investors have availed themselves of this credit and to what
degree. We do know it ls instrumental in mobilizing the capital as intended by
the Legislature”. One can speculate that the reason for not knowing is due to
tax privacy laws and can only hope the Legislature had knowledge of the
aggregate total of tax credits issued. That information is needed to know if
benefits eventually overtake the costs. Even then the benefits are only
measurable by what the state takes in through taxation or the direct benefit to
the Corporation of Maine which is not a measure of the benefit to the general
economy of Maine. The government is but a faction of Maine's economy. A system in which there are winners and losers cannot
be said to serve the common good. Among the citizenry the only winners are
those who land the high paying jobs targeted by the Legislature. General
taxpayers must cover the burden of capitalizing the high paying jobs. The
taxpayers of Maine do not see an individual benefit from the burden they share
other than what hypothetically occurs through the trickledown effect but the
burden of costs also have a trickledown effect. In targeted sector economics,
the bottom half of the economy subsidizes the upper half of the economy It is
not surprising that the gulf between the haves and the have nots has increased
in Maine and across the USA since the late 1970's when refundable tax credits
first came into use. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that between
2009 and 2011, the top one percent in Maine captured 60 percent of all income
growth Between 1979 and 2007, the top one percent took home well
over half (53.9 percent) of the total increase in U.S. income,” the EPI report
found. “Over this period, the average income of the bottom 99 percent of U.S.
taxpayers grew by 18.9 percent. Simultaneously, the average income of the top
one percent grew 10 times as much— by 200.5 percent. …EPI reinforces MECEP’s own analysis
which shows that wage inequality in Maine is growing,” Martin said. “While
Maine has some of the lowest levels of income inequality among states, the
economy continues to fail too many hard working Mainers who are experiencing
very little income growth. MECEP’s report, The State of Working Maine in 2013
(http://bit.ly/1fhcBqU), released in November 2013 highlights this fact showing
that between the late 1970s and the mid-2000s, the average income- after
federal taxes and programs such as food stamps -for the poorest fifth of Maine households
grew just 27 percent, from $18,720 to $23,825 Middle-income households fared
slightly better, growing 47 percent over the same period. Meanwhile, average
income for the top 20% of Maine households grew by 67
percent. Maine Center For Economic Policy February
2014 [8] Factor in that the purchasing power of the dollar
decreased by 70% between 1979 and 2007.[9]
In claiming success for the new tax credit program, the
110th Joint Standing Committee on Taxation writes “We do know it ls instrumental in mobilizing
the capital, as intended by the Legislature”- Why wouldn't that occur given
the combined effect of §5202. Credit for investment in The Maine Capital
Corporation and §5202-A. Small business investment companies exempt, the one a
refundable tax credit of 50% of the investment and the other a 100% tax
exemption? There is another loop hole in the bills definition of purposes
and limitations of the Maine Capital Corporation. Subsidiaries of foreign
corporations which do their business primarily
in Maine or do substantially all of
their production in Maine are defined as Maine Corporations. I am speculating
at this point on the purpose lying behind the construction of the law. The
combination of §5202. Credit for investment in The Maine Capital Corporation
and §5202-A. a 100% tax exemption for small business investment companies
either functioned to transform the tax credit into a refundable tax credit or
there could have been other Maine taxes generated by subsidiaries of foreign
corporations via investments not located in Maine to which Maine tax credits
could be applied. The Standing Committee on Taxation's Report merely states ““We have no knowledge of which investors have
availed themselves of this credit and to what degree”. Is it because
ambiguities in the interpretation of the law may be handled differently by
different tax preparers? If so, how cognizant was the 1977 Legislature of that
flexibility within the law which they codified under the leadership of the
heads of Maine's most prosperous industries? The Legislature shows as little concern about the
fact of individual losers as it does about individual winners. It measures the
public benefit collectively. If the corporate state sees an increase in tax
revenues over time that means that the public has benefited, a collectivists
world view. The state functions as a corporation calculating its own profits,
not as public servants serving the common good. Like any private corporation,
the state has its targeted sector which are its own special interests. The
state has become one large development corporation, different from private
development corporations only in the fact that the state writes the laws under
which the general economy of Maine must function. When is A
Corporation Not a Corporation? If the new private leaders of the state's public
private government didn't concern themselves about the Maine Constitution,
perhaps some among the Legislature were aware of Article IV Part Third Section
14's prohibition against chartering corporations by special act of legislation.
In 1977 a statute was passed to reinvent the definition of “corporation”,
paving the way for the corporate state, which is arguably that which Article IV
Pat Third Sections 13 & 14 of the Maine Constitution is intended to
prevent. THE RULES FOR NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS begins with a list
of what is to be excluded from the definition of a corporation for the purposes
of the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act: 1 Definitions A Corporation. Title 13-B Section
102(4) defines the term "Corporation" as used in the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act. Certain entities are excluded from the
definition. Among the exclusions are "an instrumentality, agency,
political subdivision or body politic and corporate of the State." The
Secretary of State interprets that phrase to mean an administrative unit or
corporate outgrowth of State, county or local government created by statute,
order, resolution, ordinance or articles of incorporation to perform functions
traditionally associated with government activities. By way of example,
entities, which will be considered excluded from the definition of corporation,
include, but are not limited to:….[10] Once again we see the authority to interpret the law
granted to an inappropriate branch of government, in this case the
administrative branch of government which does not constitutionally have
interpretative authority under the United States Constitution or the Maine
Constitution. The separation of the powers of government is basic Are we to
believe that the entire legislative body of Maine is so ignorant of one of the
fundamental premises of the United States and Maine Constitutions? The
corporations which are said to be not corporations in the Maine Nonprofit
Corporation Act are chartered as corporations in the special acts of
legislation serving as their corporate charters. Despite the fact that the
Legislature is trying to define a corporation as not a corporation, the
language used to convey what is cannot find a way to articulate the concept
without using the language of incorporation. Despite the clear need for Maine's
new government by public private relationships to get around the Maine
Constitution, it still needs to use definitions legally recognized in national
and international law if it aspires to be a world class player. Below is a list of corporations that are said to be not
corporations for the purposes of Maine's new public-private system of
government: Note that churches are still classified as corporations but
non-profit religious corporations that are not churches are deemed to be not
corporations, although even the Legislature couldn't figure out a way to
identify them for the purpose of saying that they are not what they are without
saying they are what they are said not to be: Reinventing the significance of
language for the purpose of getting around dusty old Constitution is sometimes
a very convoluted process and so we must bear with clumsiness of such a heroic
attempt! (1) State
departments, bureaus, divisions, commissions, boards and offices; (2) The
University of Maine; (3) The
Maine Maritime Academy; (4) Cities,
towns, plantations, counties and their political subdivisions; (5) Municipal
and county agencies; (6) Quasi-governmental
bodies of State government; (7) State
and local housing authorities; (8) Quasi-municipal
bodies including districts such as school administrative, hospital, water and
sewer; (9) Voting
districts; (10) County
extension associations; (11) Regional
planning commissions; (12) Councils
of government; (13) Development
districts; (14) Urban
renewal authorities; and (15) The
instrumentalists and corporate or political subdivisions of any of the above. B Church (1) Churches
may organize as corporations under either Title 13 or Title 13-B. (2) Nonprofit
religious corporations that are not churches must be governed by Title 13-B. (3) For
the purposes of distinguishing these two types of corporations,
"churches" means organizations whose primary purposes are (1)
religious worship or (2) the management of buildings whose primary function is
housing religious worship. (4) The
term "churches" does not include religious schools, associations of
religious organizations or clergy, church camps, or support groups to repair or
maintain church buildings. On October 14 2013 When I published a blog post titled How Maine's Home Rule Amendment Was Superseded By
Statutory Law, The
Rules for Non-Profit Corporations were posted online. Those rules are now
available only by downloading the document- You can Download the Rules at the Maine Secretary of
State's website http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/29/chaps29.htm with
this warning: Rule Chapters for the Department of the Secretary of State Chapters available for downloading are highlighted. All
chapters are in Microsoft Word format. WARNING: While we have taken care with the accuracy of the
files accessible here, they are not "official" state rules in the
sense that they can be used before a court. Anyone who needs a certified copy
of a rule chapter should contact the APA
Office. Since the only robust way to challenge the
constitutionality of statutory law is through the courts, anyone attempting to
use the rules of this chapter before a court of law could present problems for
Maine's corporate state which has entrenched an ever expanding network of
corporations chartered by special acts of legislation. To have standing in a
court of law one must show personal and individual harm done. Could these
re-definitions hold the key to that? I cannot say. Clearly the intent of an
1876 constitutional Amendment cannot be defined by re-definitions of a key
concept created by the Maine Legislature in 1977. The progressives who are
implementing their new system of government do not have the consent of the
governed. The consent of the governed is codified in one place only, the Maine
Constitution. The Maine Capital Corporation and The Maine Development
Foundation had "sunset laws" in their charters, providing that each
would be phased out at a specified date. The Maine Capital Corporation was phased
out in 1981. The Maine Development Foundation Corporation still exists today
and has generated an ever-expanding network of state corporations. [1] This subject is covered in
the chapter called The City States, [2]
http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lupc/laws_rules/rule_chapters/Statute_2014.pdf [3]
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43767 [4]
The Maine Constitution: A Reference Manual [5]
http://preservingtheamericanpoliticalphilosophy.com/report%202.pdf [6] Maine Capital Corporation [7]
http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lupc/laws_rules/rule_chapters/Statute_2014.pdf [8]
http://www.mecep.org/new-report-the-income-gap-between-those-at-the-very-top-of-theeconomic-ladder-andeveryone-else-is-growing-wider/
for communities and individuals not included in the state's “targeted sector” [10] The quote presented here
is as it was when I originally encountered the bill. When I went back to it on
9/20/2016, it was changed to 4. Corporation. "Corporation" or
"domestic corporation" means a nonprofit corporation subject to this
Act, including a nonprofit hospital and medical organization subject to Title
24, chapter 19. It shall not include: A. A foreign corporation; [1977, c. 592,
§12 (NEW).] B. A corporation subject to the laws regulating banking and
insurance companies; or [1977, c. 592, §12 (NEW).] C. An
instrumentality, agency, political subdivision or body politic and corporate of
the State. [1977, c. 592, §12 (NEW).] [ 1977, c. 592, §12 (RPR) .] “ The
explanation about the Secretary of State’s interpretation was gone. The exclusion
of corporations serving as instrumentalities of the state are still arguably unconstitutional
pursuant to Article IV Part Third Sections 13 & 14 of the Maine
Constitution. There was no notation reflecting that the text of the statute had
been edited. Posted by
corporatism. corporate state,
Governor Longley & The Architects of Transformatio...