Religon is important especially as it relates to remedy
On Sunday, July 11, 2021, 12:14:33 PM PDT, Bill
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How is any of this talk about religion helping us get remedy against a
tyrannical government?
On Sunday, July 11, 2021, 12:58:12 PM CDT, Aéius Cercle of
Quantum-Note(Law-Division) <law@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I interact with «religious» people who come to my door... I generally end
up saying things like the following...:
«Salvation is a personal responsibility.» (i.e.: 'Tis not up to me but for thee
to «save» thyself)
«I cannot do your homework/reading for you.» (i.e.: For your wisdom to
increase, just like for your muscles to get stronger, you have to be the one to
personally do the work/reading/research/field-testing/etc., for it does no good
if I am the one doing all of your push-ups for you if you wish for your own
muscles to get stronger)
I have a comprehensive-enough knowledge of the «important» parts of the bible
as to demonstrate to «religious» folk that I am not
ignorant/unlearned/uninformed/etc., of «scriptural» passages, and, have been
willing to take my time explaining in-detail with them what each of those often
highly disputed passages mean in their full-context, much to their great
interest from my experiences (I had a really good conversation with some Mormon
Missionaries back when I lived at Renton, Washington-state, one which I wish
could have been recorded, for, they had a lot of great questions, and I did my
best to clarify what the most-likely context of those bible-passages meant from
what I could gather from my thus-far back then accumulated research; it was
«interesting» enough to the point that I believe it really could have ended up
becoming one of the most-popular YT-videos around the topic of the bible if it
were to exist & actually be uploaded).
Whilst I am not going to go over all the details of that day,s conversation
here, I am just going to mention that some of the topics we covered included
the extended context for «'Tis by works that thou hast been saved» versus
«Faith without works is dead», the extended context meaning of «Judge not lest
ye be judged», how the size of the bible is actually kind of inadequate to
fully explain/describe the «fullness of God» (see John 21:25 & the Dead Sea
Scrolls for supporting references), references to how «God uses the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise; God uses the weak to topple the
strong» (I'm sure most of you can take a few wild-guesses as to what we
discussed in relation to this passage), and quite a few other commonly taught
bible-verses (yes, and if I remember correctly, even Romans 13).
Anyway, that is all I wish to «interject» with amongst you having this...
ahem... conversation... assuming we can call it that (try not to get too much
into the «heated» debate mode if you can), take it for what you will, and try
not to «wrest the scriptures» too much, such to the point that, you end up in
unnecessary ego-clashing heated debates rather than calm-and-rational
discussion. Thanks for your patience with my seemingly long-windedness. Over
and out for now !
On 11.07.2021 10:38, Rick Paris (Redacted sender rickparis23 for DMARC) wrote:
I can see this is not making sense at al to you JB, which is fine, I don’t
need to read the Bible anymore, I have been through the actual system and know
what is going on, take it or leave it. Reading the Bible at this point is a
moot point for me. You are reading it to uncover what I know. You are buying
into some of the half truths, which we are in a Universe of free will, which is
completely your choice of course. I am only sharing something new form first
hand experience. Once you learn a spiritual system, (religion) and you have
your experience of the divine/death and resurrection, and now know completely
what you were searching for in the Bible, why would I consider the writings of
other’s? I don’t any longer. I do not mind answering any questions, but arguing
the merits of hearsay against experience is a waste of time. I just
purposefully mentioned aspects of your quotes to show you where the half truths
lie. Those comments were for you more specifically. Have a good day.
On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:26 AM, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rick really? "There is a Goddess" ? next you will tell us there is Mother
Earth God, KJV 1611 is one and the only God. No goddess in the equation or
Godess. Ther is no "they create all things" physically or figuratively.
God is a jealous God, (KJV Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god:
for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:” )
He is an Angry God (KJV Psalms 7:11 “God judgeth the righteous, and God is
angry with the wicked every day.” )
God is vengeful ( KJV Jeremiah 50:28 "The voice of them that flee and escape
out of the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of the LORD our
God, the vengeance of his temple")
I highly doubt you didnt learn what i stated in a baptist church as you say
you went too, assuming you went to bible study for years.
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 12:02 PM Rick Paris <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
There is a God, and a Goddess, and together they create all things, and
together they operate as One. God is not vengeful, nor angry, or jealous as
depicted, basically being less than admirable father figure. The stale view is
to see everything from only one side, singular authority, dominated and
elevated by a masculine entity, which is chauvinism. As above so below, does
anything in nature operate that way, from a singular masculine position? They
do not hold a 50-50 equality energetically, they are 2/3F -1/3M, also following
the golden mean, in that sensing. The Bible is missing many truths needed to
fully understand the truth, better to not place trust in something filled with
half truths, there is just enough truth for some things to be right, but
missing many additional aspects. If you're going to use it as a guide, then I
would suggest the Bible ought to be taken from you being the son of god.
Martyrhood, is a basic child/adolescent response to life, it is debilitating
for an adult, any enlightened person, would never choose to be a martyr.
Martyrs punish those they love in the act of their sacrifice.
On Jul 10, 2021, at 7:01 PM, Ray Greninger (Redacted sender "raygreninger" for
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If it is a stale and outdated view of the divine then what is the accurate
view? Who is Jesus in your view? Was all that was written about him made up
whole cloth, or is there another way to interpret what all of those people were
writing about?
On Jul 10, 2021, at 5:54 PM, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
IRS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. Yes, YOU HEARD THAT CORRECTLY!
The current system of enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and
C is repugnant to and violative of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution and its implementing statute, 40 U.S.C. 255.
The Constitution is unambiguous about defining WHAT Congress is authorized to
do and WHERE they can do it. The IRS cannot tax where the US cannot legislate.
Specifically with respect to "where" Congress enjoys legislative, i.e.,
police/taxing jurisdiction, the Constitution reads:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and
the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United
States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent
of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
The Department of Justice's own Criminal Resource Manual documents the true
limits of the DOJ's police authority:
664 Territorial Jurisdiction
Of the several categories listed in 18 U.S.C. § 7, Section 7(3) is the most
significant, and provides:
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,"
as used in this title, includes: . . . (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for
the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent
jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the
United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same
shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other
needful building.
As is readily apparent, this subsection, and particularly its second clause,
bears a striking resemblance to the 17th Clause of Article I, Sec. 8 of the
Constitution.
This clause provides:
"The Congress shall have power. . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may,
by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the
Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." (Emphasis added.)
The constitutional phrase "exclusive legislation" is the equivalent of the
statutory expression "exclusive jurisdiction."
See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 141 (1937), citing, Surplus
Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 652 (1930).
Until the decision in Dravo, it had been generally accepted that when the
United States acquired property with the consent of the state for any of the
enumerated purposes, it acquired exclusive jurisdiction by operation of law,
and any reservation of authority by the state, other than the right to serve
civil and criminal process, was inoperable. See Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook,
281 U.S. at 652-56. When Dravo held that a state might reserve legislative
authority, e.g., the right to levy certain taxes, so long as that did not
interfere with the United States' governmental functions, it became necessary
for Congress to amend 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), by adding the words "so as," to restore
criminal jurisdiction over those places previously believed to be under
exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction.
See H.R. Rep. No. 1623, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940); S. Rep. No. 1788, 76th
Cong., 3d Sess. 1 (1940).
Dravo also settled that the phrase "other needful buildings" was not to be
strictly construed to include only military and naval structures, but was to be
construed as "embracing whatever structures are found to be necessary in the
performance of the function of the Federal Government." See James v. Dravo
Contracting Co. , 302 U.S. at 142-43 . It therefore properly embraces
courthouses, customs houses, post offices and locks and dams for navigation
purposes.
The "structures" limitation does not, however, prevent the United States from
holding or acquiring and having jurisdiction over land acquired for other valid
purposes, such as parks and irrigation projects since Clause 17 is not the
exclusive method of obtaining jurisdiction.
The United States may also obtain jurisdiction by reserving it when sovereign
title is transferred to the state upon its entry into the Union or by cession
of jurisdiction after the United States has otherwise acquired the property.
See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30 (1938); James v. Dravo
Contracting Co., 302 U.S. at 142; Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. at
650-52; Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 526-27, 538, 539
(1885).
The United States may hold or acquire property within the borders of a state
without acquiring jurisdiction. It may acquire title to land necessary for the
performance of its functions by purchase or eminent domain without the state's
consent. See Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372 (1976). But it does
not thereby acquire legislative jurisdiction by virtue of its proprietorship.
The acquisition of jurisdiction is dependent on the consent of or cession of
jurisdiction by the state.
See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 97 (1937); James v. Dravo Contracting
Co ., 302 U.S. at 141-42.
State consent to the exercise of Federal jurisdiction may be evidenced by a
specific enactment or by general constitutional or statutory provision. Cession
of jurisdiction by the state also requires acceptance by the United States.
See Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook,
281 U.S. at 651-52.
Whether or not the United States has jurisdiction is a Federal question.
See Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. at 197.
Prior to February 1, 1940, it was presumed that the United States accepted
jurisdiction whenever the state offered it because the donation was deemed a
benefit. See Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. at 528. This
presumption was reversed by enactment of the Act of February 1, 1940, codified
at 40 U.S.C. § 255. This statute requires the head or authorized officer of the
agency acquiring or holding property to file with the state a formal acceptance
of such "jurisdiction, exclusive or partial as he may deem desirable," and
further provides that in the absence of such filing "it shall be conclusively
presumed that no such jurisdiction has been acquired." See Adams v. United
States, 319 U.S. 312 (district court is without jurisdiction to prosecute
soldiers for rape committed on an army base prior to filing of acceptance
prescribed by statute). The requirement of 40 U.S.C. § 255 can also be
fulfilled by any filing satisfying state law. United States v. Johnson, 994
F.2d 980, 984-86 (2d Cir. 1993). The enactment of 40 U.S.C. § 255 did not
retroactively affect jurisdiction previously acquired. See Markham v. United
States, 215 F.2d 56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 939 (1954); United
States v. Heard, 270 F. Supp. 198, 200 (W.D. Mo. 1967).
In summary, the United States may exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over
lands within state borders:
A. Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the union;
B. Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose
enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;
C. Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent domain, and
thereafter, but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession of jurisdiction
from the state; and
D. Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent or
cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the requisite
acceptance.
U.S. DOJ Criminal Resource Manual, October 1997 Section 664
The police power is vested in the States and not the federal government. See
Wilkerson v. Rarer, 140 U.S. 545, 554, 11 S.Ct. 865, 866 (1891) (the police
power "is a power originally and always belonging to the States, not
surrendered to them by the general government, nor directly restrained by the
constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive"); Union National
Bank v. Brown, 101 Ky. 354, 41 S.W. 273 (1897); John Woods &Sons v. Carl, 75
Ark. 328, 87 S.W. 621, 623 (1905); Southern Express Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala.
406, 69 So.2d 652, 655 (1915); Shealey v. Southern Ry. Co., 127 S.C. 15, 120
S.E. 561, 562 (1924) ("The police power under the American constitutional
system has been left to the states. It has always belonged to them and was not
surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the
constitution of the United States … Congress has no general power to enact
police regulations operative within the territorial limits of a state"); and
McInerney v. Ervin, 46 So.2d 458, 463 (Fla. 1950)
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction." Standard v Olson, 74
S.Ct. 768. "It has also been held that jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown
and will not be presumed." Special Indem. Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK.
308 Even the IRS's own CID manual shows it does not have jurisdiction inside
the fifty states:
"The Criminal Investigative Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable
to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United
States citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject
to federal income tax filing requirements."
IRS Criminal Investigation Division
The Supreme Court says the government has an obligation to ascertain bona fide
authority:
"Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of
having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government
stays within the bounds of this authority." Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill,
33 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure even states there is no jurisdiction
inside the States:
" 'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in
force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an
insular possession." See 18 USC, Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Note: There is NO reference to the 50 "states."
The IRS must establish jurisdiction or it will be sanctioning FRAUD: "Silence
is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the
existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under
such circumstances that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an
Estoppel."
Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to
speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.
... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is
based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to
expect the same from government in its enforcement and collection activities
.... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the 'routine'
it should be corrected immediately."
[U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)][quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d
1021, 1032 (1970)]
The U.S.C. codifies the Constitutional requirement at Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 and proscribes the procedure and required documentation for the
federal government to successfully assert jurisdiction inside one of the fifty
states. To wit: 40 USCS § 255 (now 3111 and 3112) clearly and specifically
requires that a "notice of acceptance" is to be filed "with the Governor of
such State or in such manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State
where such lands are situated." "Such lands," of course, referring to those
lands that the federal government, through its agents, is claiming exclusive or
concurrent jurisdiction over the people living thereon. The text of § 255
concludes with the statement "Unless and until the United States has accepted
jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be
conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted." [Emphasis
added]
Obviously, if the requirements of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution of the United States are not complied with, and/or if the
procedural requirements of 40 U.S.C. § 255 are not complied with, then no
public servant who is acting as an agent of the United States, i.e. the federal
government, has any bona fide authority whatsoever to attempt to force
compliance with any federal law, rule, code, statute, etc. on anyone living in
such an area that is not subject to any bona fide jurisdiction of the federal
government.
In support of this rather an obvious conclusion, the second paragraph of
interpretive note 14 of 40 U.S.C. § 255 says: "In view of 40 U.S.C. § 255, no
jurisdiction exists in United States to enforce federal criminal laws, unless
and until consent to accept jurisdiction over lands acquired by United States
has been filed in behalf of United States as provided in said section, and fact
that state has authorized government to take jurisdiction is immaterial. Adams
v. United States (1943) 319 US 312, 87 L Ed 1421, 63 S Ct 1122." (plaintiff's
emphasis). [Federal jurisdiction] " ...must be considered in the light of our
dual system of government and may not be extended. . .in view of our complex
society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national
and what is local and create a completely centralized government." United
States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624 (1995).
The IRS lacks territorial jurisdiction. The current system of enforcement of
the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A and C is repugnant to and violative of
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution and its implementing
statute, 40 U.S.C. 255.
With Life, Liberty, and Happiness,
Rick Sousa rickparis23@xxxxxxxxx
With Life, Liberty, and Happiness,
Rick Sousa rickparis23@xxxxxxxxx
