Yeah, Ufact ... it is a case of the mind either going abiotic or kaput. Whichever it is, it is bad ... bad! There are heart parts and liver parts for sale but no brand new brain-matter yet you can buy to repair a defective mind!

It looks like Meghan Kinetic and Powell Gammill misread this case or if they did not read it wrong, cannot understand why this "religious felon" Pastor Salman was arrested, sentenced 60 days in jail and fined $12k.

The impertinent comments they made show how ignorant they are about the consequences of breaking the law -- as if they don't know that Salman broke the law and paid the price for it, which he must.

In their comments, it is quite clear to me that these two cavaliers wanted Salman to get away with it … to be free of any responsibility after breaking the law because in their foolish argument he was protected by the Constitution in the exercise of his religious freedom as a Minister of God! The Constitution does not say that because you are a Minister of God, you can break the law!

How can this kind of thinking gets so twisted, why, they need to see a psychiatrist immediately!

AntiAcidNo.1, you just pointed out our difficult problems in the practice of law when dealing with clients we have to advise what the law means. When it is hard for them to understand the law even though how much we try to explain it to them, they just throw their tantrum and even resort to badmouthing, and thus putting our reputation in the chopping block. As shown in this case, it is just as bad as when anti-Statist editor Gammill has just that bad intention of exploiting the arrest of Salman to whip the anger of the public against the State of Arizona, and as bad when M. Kinetic's ignorance misled others to direct their hatred against law enforcement officers who couldn’t do anything but arrest Salman for violating the law of Arizona.

I hope you taught them a lesson to learn. But I doubt it. These guys are not that dumb – they just have a vicious anti-Government-anti-State agenda!

TEACHING YOU WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW AND LEARN FROM ...

Meghan Kinetic (#047470) and Powell Gammill (#013871) listen to me carefully … I wish you two are lawyers like I am so that it would be easier for me to explain to you what YOU TWO SHOULD LEGALLY UNDERSTAND ABOUT LAW. But I will speak to you in a layman’s language the simplest way possible to get this into your head. But first I will quote what you Meghan Kinetic is saying that obviously bothers you, viz:

"[1] The real question is why are there such restrictive laws that prohibit anyone from doing what they want on their property, granted they don't impede on anyone's rights? …[2] [W]hy does he [religious felon Salman] need permission from the state to build something on land he owns?

[3] The absurdity of land ordinance laws is evident, and not all laws are to the benefit of the people".

My response to you in the simplest layman’s language possible that you can understand:

(1) If in your aching mind the law of Arizona applicable to churches is "restrictive" or even unjust, you lodge your protest against the law-making body of Phoenix or the State of Arizona that passed such laws. Don’t be foolish to take your frustrations on law-enforcement officers. Salman broke the law and it is their duty to arrest him. Plant this inside your mind and nurture it the rest of life: Police officers DO NOT MAKE THE LAW that you are against. You may be able to teach this knowledge to your children if you have any.

(2) Pastor Salman needs permission to build something in his own land because the law requires that that "something" he wanted to build in his own land needs a permit, for the protection of the general public.

(3) Laws passed by the State’s law-making bodies are NOT perfect. If in your aching mind these are restrictive or violative of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, you go challenge them in the court of law for the Judiciary to declare them unconstitutional, void or non-operative. You DON’T break them, like what Pastor Salman did. If you do, police and the court may be in your side, but you give them no alternative but to arrest you and throw you in jail, like what they did to lawbreaker Pastor Salman.

YOU GOT IT?

Powell Gammill, you might learn a very simple lesson from what I am going to teach you: This is what you said: "I thought both the Bill of Rights and the AZ CONstitution (section 2) made it clear there could be no regulation of, nor support of religion, or regulation of the peaceful assembly of people. That those Rights had been reserved to the people by the people and were not under legislative purview."

As I have just told Meghan Kinetic, the law passed by the law-making body of Arizona might be "violative" of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, and if you are not an IRRESPONSIBLE Editor, you should have pointed out to Pastor Salman and his ignorant supporters as a matter of EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY that they have to go to court to declare the law Arizona applicable to churches, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But instead what did you say to them – " … armed thugs from all three branches of government conspiring to both thwart the Rights of people to gather as well as practice their beliefs might be thought evil."

This does not only show your editorial irresponsibility but also reveals your own "evil" intention to say what you have just stated WHICH IS NOT TRUE or IRRELEVANT in this care, just to incite anger on Salman, his uninformed and misguided supporters and the reading public to hate even more the Government, and the State of Arizona in particular. It betrays your severe anti-State mentality which obviously you cannot control as it always shows up at a wrong time and at a wrong place.

Gammill, your editorial irresponsibility even misled Meghan Kinetic when he said "… I highly doubt FP is run by some secret cabal of evil editors working for the dark side."

Oh, YES! It is. You just read the evidence of evil intention … in what editor Gammill just stated.

And here I thought both the Bill of Rights and the AZ CONstitution (section 2) made it clear there could be no regulation of, nor support of religion, or regulation of the peaceful assembly of people.  That those Rights had been reserved to the people by the people and were not under legislative purview.  

And that armed thugs from all three branches of government conspiring to both thwart the Rights of people to gather as well as practice their beliefs might be thought evil.

My bad. 

Really, AntiAcid? Run by editors from the "dark side?" That sounds a bit paranoid, don't you think? Anyway, I think you missed the point. You're using the standard argument I've seen used by others to attack this man, which is if he broke the law, he deserves to be punished. The real question is why are there such restrictive laws that prohibit anyone from doing what they want on their property, granted they don't impede on anyone's rights? It is no different than having weekly get togethers to watch football or Nascar or whatever. And if the building is on his property, why should it matter, or even why does he need permission from the state to build something on land he owns?

The absurdity of land ordinance laws is evident, and not all laws are to the benefit of the people. That is the real point the reporter is trying to make, and I highly doubt FP is run by some secret cabal of evil editors working for the dark side. This is possibly the freest news site on the net, considering that the news is reported by real and informed people instead of regurgitated by some corporation with bias' of its own.

Part of the duty of Government is the protection of its citizens - in some cases, from themselves. Part of that protection involves maintaining freedom for the people.

If a person builds a building that is structurally unsafe - not according to code - could harm the people using the building - when is it the duty of Government to step in and do something about it?

On the other hand, if a person wants to build a structurally unsafe building, why isn't he free to do so, if he knows that it is structurally unsafe, yet freely wants to use it? Why should he NOT be free to do the things that he wants, especially on his own property, and when there is no danger to adjoining properties? And if other people want to use the building, also knowing that it is not unsafe, why should they not be free to do what they want as well?

Has anyone heard of Camelback Mountain in Phoenix. It is a large rock formation, roughly in the shape of a camel, that juts skyward, about 1,500 feet into the air, out of the rocky sand that makes up the Phoenix desert-land. It is fairly steep, with 2 main trails up the mountainside, and multitudes of unauthorized "custom" trails made by the "general-public-mountain-climbers" who frequent Camelback Mountain. See: http://phoenix.gov/recreation/rec/parks/preserves/locations/camelback/index.html.

Camelback Mountain is owned by Phoenix. The City has set the Camelback Mountain area up as a City Park, and encourages recreational climbers to hit the trails. Yet, every year several people fall, or otherwise hurt themselves while climbing on the Mountain. Some need to be air-evacuated. Once in a while, someone dies.

The point is, does the City care about people getting hurt? NO! If they did, they would shut down Camelback Mountain, since the place is somewhat dangerous. Since we see that the City doesn't care about people getting hurt, do they care about peoples' rights and freedom? NO! If they did, they would allow people to build unsafe buildings on their own property. So, what does the City care about? All the City cares about is CONTROLLING PEOPLE IN WAYS THAT THEY CAN MAKE MONEY FROM!

If Government really cared about the safety of buildings and the people using them, if Gov really cared about freedom and rights for people regarding the buildings that people used, Government would:

1. Keep the building code in place as it is;
2. Allow people to make and use any building they want on their own property - as long is there is no potential harm to adjoining properties;
3. And if the building is unsafe by code standards, require the posting and maintaining of BIG signs on the property stating that the place had been inspected, had been found structurally defective and dangerous for use, and USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

As things stand now, it's all about money and control, rather than safety and freedom.

The Pastor referred to was arrested for violating Arizona law applicable to churches. He was not arrested because of his "backyard church" or because of religious beliefs. Convicted to serve a jail sentence and to pay fine, the culprit Michael Salman is a religious felon -- make no mistake about it.

I wonder why this website allows a story like this to harness sympathy on the arrested religious felon who clearly deserved his arrest and jail sentence.  It is clear to me that the purpose of the editors is to promote hatred towards the State of Arizona because it did somethingh right. It now appears to me that this website is run by editors from the dark side.