Trespassing, new rules
I'm amazed that the F&DS has to write a special letter to explain to R&F that "No Tresspassing" means "No Tresspassing".
Wait a minute, no....I'm not amazed at all.
In fact, I'm still waiting for the letter explaining that Traffic Lights and Stop Signs must be obeyed, even if it slows down your ability to get to the Assigned Territory(TM)....
No, No, wait a sec...I'm wrong again; everyone knows that when travelling to the Assigned Territory(TM) everyone takes EXTRA TIME at Stop Signs; I guess that's why they haven't needed to send that "clarification".
OK, ok, how about this: a letter explaining that service is NOT "Pants Optional".
~Quotes, of the "Stating the Obvious" class
I'm e-mailing it to you Nos.
All I've recieved in the past 5 minutes is an offer to buy WinXP Pro, a penis enlargement pill ad, and that stupid Netsky virus......(edited to add) twice
* If publishers call on a home or enter the grounds around a home where a "No Trespassing" sign is located, they may be subject to criminal prosecution and resulting monetary sanctions and/or incarceration. They also face being sued by the householder.
Nice to know that the shepherds will leave the sheep to hang out and dry if they make a mistake and call where they out not, while working unpaid to further the intersts of that org. As dubs are fond of saying " What would Jesus do in this situation?"
Definitely a sign of the times, when JWs shrink back from "God's Laws" to follow man's laws, eh?
Has anyone thought of publicizing this information to the press? Even a simple editorial letter stating the new policy. A few more No Trespassing signs would shut down most rural territories.
Just imagine hearing this announcement: Tired of having Jehovah's Witnesses call on your door? Find out how to stop them. News at 11...
Law pleases ?No Soliciting? champ By BRYAN GILMER, Times Staff Writer
St. Petersburg Times ONLINE, Tampa Bay, published June 22, 2002
An anti-soliciting champion finds that an ordinance he
pushed in Clearwater is backed by the U.S. Supreme Court. CLEARWATER -- Dave Campbell stands on the brown tile stoop of his
Spanish-style house and points to the "No Soliciting" sign on his
screen door. "That's a sign that works," he says. Since 1995, Campbell has been an evangelist for "No Soliciting"
signs in his Grovewood subdivision, an aging but solidly
middle-class suburban neighborhood. Bugged by repeated visits from Jehovah's Witnesses, Campbell
pushed for the 1995 Clearwater ordinance that gives "No Soliciting"
signs the force of law. Solicitors who knock anyway can be charged
with a misdemeanor. So Campbell was especially pleased when he heard about Monday's
U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said such ordinances offer
"ample protection" of property owners' rights against the free-speech
rights of door-to-door canvassers. In the same case, the court struck down as unconstitutional a small
Ohio town's requirement that all canvassers register with the city
before banging on doors. In the Tampa Bay area, Temple Terrace requires solicitors and
canvassers to get a free permit, but it exempts people from
organizations with a nonprofit tax status. Officials there are
reviewing the ordinance in light of the Supreme Court decision. Other governments said the ruling changes nothing. Tampa and
Hillsborough County have no door-to-door solicitation ordinance.
Pasco County ordinances do not cover volunteer solicitors, but
solicitors hired by charities need a permit. St. Petersburg's ordinance does not place restrictions on
non-commercial solicitors; commercial solicitors need peddlers'
permits. "We looked at it, and I don't think it's going to affect us,"
St. Petersburg City Attorney John Wolfe said of Monday's ruling. For decades, Jehovah's Witnesses have been at the center of court
cases that strike the balance between property owners' privacy and
safety and the rights of people to spread their ideas door to door. They challenged the Ohio permit requirement all the way to the
Supreme Court. Robert Mackey, overseer of Tampa for the church, said going to
homes to seek new believers is central to the faith. He said the church does not oppose "No Soliciting" sign ordinances,
and that its members respect the signs even where no city law backs
them. "They usually just refrain from knocking," Mackey said. "When there
is a sign saying 'No Jehovah's Witnesses,' we mark it down and it's
incorporated into our information about the territory." Campbell, who is retired but declines to disclose his age, said the
Jehovah's Witnesses who used to visit him were not as accommodating. "Every six weeks or every three weeks, they would unload a pack of
Jehovah's Witnesses, good looking people in suits or whatever,"
Campbell remembers. "Every time they would come, we'd tell them,
'We don't like the intrusion, please mark us off your list.' But
this went on and on and on again." After the Clearwater City Council passed the ordinance, Campbell
bought a stack of "No Soliciting" signs and handed them out to his
neighbors. He has a diagram of the neighborhood, labeled with each
homeowner's phone number and whether they posted a sign. More than
half of the homes put up a sign, he said. There was one more visit from Jehovah's Witnesses. Police charged
one with violating the ordinance. The charge was dropped on a
technicality, but Campbell says they haven't been back. In fact, with a "critical mass" of homes off limits, most solicitors
find Grovewood so unproductive that they bypass it entirely, Campbell
says. For the occasional stray doorbell ringer, Campbell has a whole spiel. "I say, 'Can you wait a minute?"' he says. "That catches them off
guard. I go and get a couple copies of this," Clearwater Code of
Ordinances Section 21.16. "One is for him, and one is for his boss," Campbell says with a grin. -- Times staff writers Tamara Lush and Matthew Waite contributed
to this story.