I have to speak to you with linear language, if you tie my answer to the
material world you are missing my point. So again I answer, God is part of a
trinity. That trinity is two things creating a third thing synergistically.
That appears in the physical as One. But it is a complex One, not a singular
one. I am trying to explain something almost no one has been able to give you,
a perspective of a non-physical experience, but first hand experience. Thats
all I can say, you may need to just think about it, or not. I know what’s going
on, you only have hearsay. Your questions aren’t of a nature to understand
more, they are an attempt to undermine and discredit. I know this isn’t easy,
it wasn’t easy for me even with the experience. There was never a Jesus. Why do
humans think they are flawed and defective? ( I know the answer, but why do you
think that way? Why would God need to sacrifice anything? What’s the
motivation? We are perfect, but have the free will to think differently. As we
never have nor ever will need to be saved. We are only here to learn to be a
god being in an illusionary experience, that only lasts a moment from the
perspective on the other side. I can only use material concepts to explain the
non-physical. I left and came back, so I don’t think I will be going to hell
for this, lol FYI, There is no hell either.
On Jul 11, 2021, at 9:19 AM, Ray Greninger (Redacted sender "raygreninger"
for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It may be that traditional teaching emphasizes a masculine God. But anyone
who adheres to that hasn’t considered that masculine and feminine are
material world concepts and they are actually describing attributes of the
material world energetically. God, having created that is surely above it.
Father is used in the sense that we used to use the word he- inclusive of
both. So again I ask, what is the more accurate view of the divine? You are
describing a lessor god, one mired in material concepts. And what about Jesus?
On Jul 11, 2021, at 10:02 AM, 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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:rickparis23@xxxxxxxxx>
