Saturday, June 3, 2017

tiptoeing through the TULIPS and other Calvinistic depravities and electives, Key West

My dreams last night against were scattered, disjointed. I got to thinking something in Birmingham, Alabama, where I was born and grew up s not going well. Probably nothing I can do about that before Monday.

In one dream last night, my first wife fell off a cliff into a gorge, but then she somehow came out of it okay. What could that have been about? I had no clue.

Over breakfast the morning at Harpoon Harry's, a fellow I play chess with regularly, usually getting beat, launched into a discourse on what he called "TULIP", which is the acronym for John Calvin's theology. 

I googled TULIP later:

The Five Points of Calvinism

There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.
The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.
Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).
Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.
Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).
Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

I told my chess friend that I was captured by Jesus, so by his Calvin definition, I am one of the Elect, but I do not see it that way. I don't have a clue where I stand with God, Jesus, I told him.

I said I attended a Presbyterian prep school founded by two Calvin followers. One had died, the other was still the headmaster. He told us during a student body devotional meeting that he believed he was one of the Elect. During a Bible course class, he told the class, I was there, that he and his wife had been married for 60 years. Twice to have children, once for pleasure, and he had regretted the 3rd time ever since.

I told my chess friend that I agree humanity is depraved, but I don't have to read Calvin or the Bible to know it. All I have to do is see what is going on around me.

My chess friend credited Calvin for the Protestant Reformation. I said I think Martin Luther got that credit. He had been a monk in a Catholic order. Part of that order's discipline was confessing. Luther had some he did not wish to confess, so he bolted the order and came up with the magic formula salvation by Jesus formula now widespread in Christendom. 

As I see, Jesus, though, I said, it's many are called, but few are chosen; the way is steep and the gate narrow and few enter therein; the work is great and the laborers are few; your will, not mine, be done, O Lord. That's the Jesus I know, I told my chess friend.

How we live, I said, determines our standing with God. We are saved by Jesus to the extent we are like him in the Gospels. Even people who never heard of Jesus, who live as he lived, are his, regardless of what Calvin or the Bible or anyone says.

I told my chess friend a lot of things, and he kicked out every one of them, as I figured he would, except we agreed on humanity being depraved. 

I told him, discussing God, Jesus, angels, and the Bible with him was, for me, like discussing that with a born again Christian evangelist, which he very definitely is not.

He has a big brain. He has read a great deal. He thinks he knows everything about Jesus, but that's not possible. He can memorize the entire Bible and be no closer to God than before he memorized it.

I think what had set him off was sometimes I told him, when he inquired how I was doing, about my fun times with the angels and my dreams and the hell they arrange for me to experience on this world.

He tore me up about that today: I'm hearing voices in my head, I'm egotistical, I make it up. Maybe he is jealous that he is not being run hard by Jesus? That Archangel Michael and Jesus don't talk to him, too?

I told him I would tell him one God story, and that would be it.

Right before a Birmingham News journalist called me in 2010 to interview me about my brother, Major, going missing in Birmingham, and Major and my father' company, out of the blue it came to me that Major had killed himself and had tried to make it look like suicide. When I told the journalist that after he called me, he said cold chills were running up and down his spine, because the same thing had come to him out of the blue just before he called me in Key West. He was not religious. My brother's body was found about 2 weeks later, and about 2 weeks after that the Jefferson County, Alabama medical examiner and the Birmingham PD detective assigned to the case both concluded it was suicide made to look like murder.

I personally think someone tuned into God, Jesus, angels, or even Lucifer, or just someone with an open mind, would hear that report above and be FUCKING BLOWN AWAY. Someone brainwashed, brain dead, worldly focused, would not be affected in the least. 

My chess friend was affected. He increased his attack. 

I said out loud, "Lord, be gentle with him, if you tap him on the noggin'; otherwise, he will go insane." 

The attack increased.

He laughed at and derided me when I said Jesus and Magdalene were married and had a child. I had changed the Bible, he said. I said, not hardly. If you have eyes that see, you have to wonder, if Magdalene washed Jesus feet with her hair and tears in public, what did she wash him with in private? 

He laughed and derided me when I said I once had met a Christian minister who had been through a serious dark night, and he agreed with me that the Bible is an internal teaching, and if you view it as external events, you miss the entire point.

He beat me bad in 2 chess games, too.

My 1st wife was Presbyterian. She became very against Christianity, which I told my chess friend today is a Satanic Cult, and on that he said he also agreed with me. 

That's what the dream about my first wife was about: my chess friend and TULIP.

Moving laterally in the deprived, sort of rhymes with depraved, zone ...

My Mary Magdalene proxy, the homeless woman Kari Dangler, called me this morning to say the homeless man Rick Roberts had told her that Mike Tolbert has sued me. Not according to the Monroe County Clerk of the Court's website this morning, but perhaps Mike sued me yesterday, Friday, and the clerk personnel did not have time to process it before the weekend started.

It was maybe a month ago that Kari called me and told me that Rick Roberts had told her that the FBI had gone out to the city's homeless shelter to ask Mike Tolbert questions about me. I went to the FBI office in the Federal Building on Simonton St. in Key West, and the FBI agent who came down to speak with me said he and his office knew nothing about such an investigation.

When I crossexamined Judith E. Haney on March 31, 2017, before 16th Florida Judicial Circuit Court Judge Bonnie J. Helms, Haney admitted she had noticed a subpoena for Mike Tolbert to testify at that hearing against me; that she did not know where Tolbert was that day (Tolbert was not in the courtroom); that she had given $1,500 to Tolbert's employer, Southern Assistance Homeless League (SHAL), which runs KOTS (the city of Key West's homeless shelter); and she had not made that donation in exchange for Tolbert testifying against me.

After suing me, Haney sued 3 of my friends down here because each in their own way got involved with Haney's lawsuit against me. One of those friends is Rick Boettger.

To grok this Haney lawsuit pleading below will be a lot easier if you have read Haney's complaint against Rick and Rick 's counterclaim against Haney, which were included in the May 31 post at this website. You can reach that post by clicking on this link:

I interjected in bold italics a few of this former Alabama practicing attorney's thoughts into this pleading below:

Filing # 57104482 E-Filed 05/31/2017 12:35:56 PM


Judith E. Haney, Plaintiff Vs CASE NO: 17-CA-000111-K Richard Dennis Boettger, Defendant


Plaintiff, Judith E. Haney, (Haney) for her Amended Answer to Counter Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140, hereby states:

1 On May 26, 2017, Defendant Richard Dennis Boettger (“Boettger”) filed an amended answer and counterclaim.

2 In response to Boettger’s counter claim, Plaintiff generally and specifically denies each and every allegation set forth therein and demands strict proof thereof. Further, the Plaintiff hereby responds Defendant’s allegations of:

a. Malicious Prosecution against Haney; Response: Denied. Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.

b. Abuse of Process against Haney; Response: Denied. Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.

c. Deprivation of Boettger’s Civil Rights By Haney; and Response: Denied. Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.

d. Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress against Haney; Response: Denied.

Plaintiff demands strict proof thereof.

3 Plaintiff moves to dismiss the Defendant’s counter claim for lack of in personam jurisdiction.

4 Boettger (an individual residing in Florida), attempts to bring this suit against Haney (an individual residing in Alabama) for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, deprivation of civil rights and other unspecified allegations.

5 Defendant fails to allege sufficient facts to bring this action against Plaintiff within the ambit of Florida's long-arm statute and fails to allege that Haney possesses the minimum contacts necessary in Florida to comport with the constitutional norms of due process required to obtain personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Boettger’s counter claim against Haney should be dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction.

6 A court may only exercise personal jurisdiction over Haney if Boettger satisfies a two-part test. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989). First, Boettger must show that Haney’s conduct falls within the reach of Florida's long arm statute (Fla. Stat. § 48.193). Id. at 502. Second, Boettger must also show that Haney possesses sufficient minimum contacts within the State so as to satisfy the due process requirements of the United States Constitution and not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice". Id. "Both parts must be satisfied for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident." Russo v. Fink, 87 So.3d. 815, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

7 "Florida's long-arm statute is strictly construed, and [Boettger] has the burden of proving facts sufficient to satisfy the statutory criteria." Insight 3 Instruments, Inc. v. Advanced Visual Instruments, Inc., 44 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1271 (M.D. Fla. 1999). See also Shefer v. Shefer, 440 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (emphasizing that Florida's long-arm statute is to be strictly construed).

8 Boettger bears the burden of proving facts that satisfy both elements of the personal jurisdiction test. Venetian Salami, 554 So.2d at 502. If Haney challenges any of Boettger’ s jurisdictional allegations, the burden shifts back to Boettger to prove the basis by which jurisdiction may be obtained. Id. Boettger may not just parrot the language of the long-arm statute. "Where the defendant has filed one or more affidavits supporting a meritorious challenge, the plaintiff is required to rebut the affidavits with opposing affidavits, testimony or documents rather than simply allege facts which show only a 'possibility of jurisdiction."' Viking Acoustical Corp v. Manco Sales Corp., 767 So.2d 632, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (internal citations omitted). 9 Florida's long-arm statute - Fla. Stat. § 48.193 - provides for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under two sets of circumstances. The first, contained in Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1), is for specific personal jurisdiction. Alternate Energy Corp., v. Redstone, 328 F.Supp.2d 1379, 1382 (S.D. Fla. 2004). "Specific" personal jurisdiction involves claims that arise from the defendant's forum-related contacts. Id. at 1382. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1) enumerates certain acts through which a nonresident may be subjected to "specific" jurisdiction in a court of this State, including: committing a tortious act within this state; causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state; or products, materials, or things processed, serviced or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce, trade or use.

10 Boettger’ s counter claim fails to allege that this Court has jurisdiction over Haney "pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b) and (f) because she committed tortious acts within Florida and/or caused

injury to persons or entities within Florida arising out of tortious acts committed outside Florida while engaged in solicitation or service activities in Florida."

Boettger's counterclaim specifically stated and detailed tortuous, tortious acts committed by Haney against Boettger.

11 Additionally, Boettger fails to allege jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(b).

12 In order for a Florida court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the defendant or the defendant's conduct must satisfy one of the elements of the long-arm statute. Garrett v. Garrett, 668 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 1996).

13 Haney has not committed any act to confer specific jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. See Exhibit A, hereto.

14 Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1) requires that Haney personally committed a tortious act within the state for specific jurisdictional purposes. Two Worlds United v. Zylstra, 46 So.3d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d 2010) (affirming order granting motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). There is no connexity between Haney’s alleged activity as set forth in Boettger’s counter claim and the alleged cause of action.

I ain't sure connexity is a word; perhaps she meant connectivity, nexus.

15 Furthermore, as set forth in the attached Affidavit of Judith E. 5 Haney, Exhibit A hereto, inter alia, Haney is not engaged in business or solicitation or service activities within this state. Haney also has no contacts whatsoever with the State of Florida and does not reside in Florida at any time during the year, does not maintain an office in Florida, does not own, hold, use, possess, or lease any real estate in Florida,, does not target any customers in Florida, has not entered into any contract in Florida, and has not committed any tortious act within Florida.

Starting December 30, 2017, Haney sued 4 people in Key West, Florida, one of whom was Boettger.

16 Accordingly, and on its face, Boettger’s counter claim fails to place Haney within the ambit of Florida's long-arm statute for specific jurisdictional purposes. Without having satisfied the first prong of the two-part test required to establish jurisdiction, Boettger’s counter claim should be dismissed.

17 Even if specific jurisdiction were proper pursuant to Florida's long-arm statute, which it clearly is not, Haney possesses insufficient contacts within the State of Florida to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement.

18 Courts must examine three factors to determine whether a defendant has established sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to comport with the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement:

(1) whether Haney has purposefully availed herself of the benefits of doing business in the forum state;

(2) whether the cause of action arose out of the activities through which Haney did so; and

(3) whether Haney could have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in the forum state. Alternate, 328 F.Supp.2d at 1382 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

Haney hailed her own self into court when she sued Boettger.

19 Boettger’s counter claim against Haney is based upon vague, non- 6 specific, allegations of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and deprivation of civil rights and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Aw, shaw. Boettger's allegations were brutally specific.

20 To establish required minimum contacts, a nonresident must engage in some act in which it "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting some type of activity within Florida, thus invoking its benefits and protections." Viking, 767 So.2d at 633. Haney has not engaged in any such activity. See Exhibit A hereto. And Boettger has failed to allege any such necessary minimum contacts, at all, such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The test prevents a defendant from being haled into a foreign forum as a result of "random", "fortuitous", or "attenuated" contacts, or because of the unilateral activity of a third person. Segal v. Russell, 553 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984). The due process clause does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual or corporate defendant with which the state has no contacts, ties or relations. Maschinenfabrik Seydelmann v. Altman, 468 So.2d 286, 288 (Fla. 2d 1985).

Nothing random here. Haney sued Boettger in Key West, making outlandish, ridiculous accusations, and Boettger countersued Haney in the same lawsuit, which should have come as no surprise to Haney, since she knew Boettger had emailed me that he hoped Haney would sue him.

21 A plaintiff’s residence in the forum, and suffering of alleged harm there, will not alone support jurisdiction. Bioheart, Inc. v. Peschong, 2013 WL 1729278 (S.D. Fla.). Haney’s Affidavit (Exhibit A) confirms her lack of contacts within the State of Florida necessary to satisfy due process requirements.

22 Premises considered, Boettger’s counter claim is due to be dismissed ...



Judith E. Haney, Plaintiff Vs CASE NO: 17-CA-000111-K Richard Dennis Boettger, Defendant


1. My name is Judith E. Haney and I am over 18-years of age.

2. I reside at 7220 Rowan Road, Leeds, Jefferson County, Alabama 35094, and I have continuously resided at that address since July, 2004.

3. I do not reside in Florida at any time during the year.

4. I have no contacts whatsoever within the state of Florida.

4 BASELESS, VEXATIOUS, FRIVOLOUS, MALICIOUS, FAKE lawsuits in Key West against 4 different PROMINENT Key West/Florida Keys residents are SERIOUS CONTACTS, CONNEXITY, NEXUS.

5. I do not conduct any business, sell any product, conduct any trade, or provide any services in the state of Florida.

6. I do not have an office in the state of Florida.

7. I do not own, hold, use, lease, or possess any real estate in the state of Florida.

8. I do not target any customers in the state of Florida.

9. I have not engaged in acts involving the Defendant Richard Dennis Boettger in the state of Florida or in any other state.

Liar. You sued Boettger in Key West.

10. I have not committed tortious acts with regard to the Defendant Richard Dennis Boettger in the state of Florida or in any other state.

Fortunately for humanity, that is for the courts, not Haney, to decide.

11. I do not engage in any commerce, service activities, trade, or business,in the state of Florida and would not expect to subject myself to jurisdiction in Florida.

When you sue someone, you give the court and the defendant jurisdiction over you regarding anything having to do with that lawsuit.


Back when I published at this website that I was considering filing a counterclaim against Haney and serving it on her myself at the February 15 hearing before Judge Bonnie Helms - Haney got that hearing continued on February 14 to March 31, claiming medical impairment prevented her from being in Key West on February - Haney filed what I labeled a ridiculous pleading, stating she had not subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the same court in which she had sued me. Anytime you sue someone, you submit yourself to that court's jurisdiction. The question therefore is, to what do you submit yourself?

From Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:

1.170 Counterclaims and Crossclaims

(a) Compulsory Counterclaims. A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, provided it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties over whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state a claim if (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit on that party’s claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on the claim and the pleader is not stating a counterclaim under this rule.

(b) Permissive Counterclaim. A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.

(c) Counterclaim Exceeding Opposing Claim. A counterclaim may or may not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind from that sought in the pleading of the opposing party.

(d) Counterclaim against the State. These rules shall not be construed to enlarge beyond the limits established by law the right to assert counterclaims or to claim credits against the state or any of its subdivisions or other governmental organizations thereof subject to suit or against a municipal corporation or against an officer, agency, or administrative board of the state.

(e) Counterclaim Maturing or Acquired after Pleading. A claim which matured or was acquired by the pleader after serving the pleading may be presented as a counterclaim by supplemental pleading with the permission of the court.

(f) Omitted Counterclaim or Crossclaim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or crossclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, the pleader may set up the counterclaim or crossclaim by amendment with leave of the court.
This former Alabama practicing attorney thinks:

The tortious wrongs by Haney against Boettger alleged in Boettger's counterclaim began when Haney sued Boettger and continued legally harassing him, and his wife, thereafter as part of that same lawsuit. Whether or not the Florida courts view those tortious wrongs as actionable counterclaim in the same lawsuit is on Judge Bonnie Helms to decide. Whether or not Judge Helms has jurisdiction over Haney was decided when Haney sued Boettger.

Was Haney's pleading written by an attorney, who was happy to take Haney's money?

The Affidavit in Haney's e-filed pleading told the world where she lives and how to find her. Maybe she will be hearing from Sville. Twin Peaks. X-Files. Dragnet. Law & Order. The National Enquirer. Oliver Stone. Archangel Michael. 

Haney sued me for publishing her Leeds home address, her telephone number, her email address her name, etc., after I told her I would do it, if she sicced the Birmingham, Alabama police on me last December and made her and my dealings a matter of public record. She puts her name, phone number, email address and p.o. box address on all of her e-filed pleadings.

If Haney sues me for that again, she should name herself a necessary party co-defendant. Failing which, I will allege she is guilty of "contributory negligence", which effectively means she should have sued herself, a corollary of let the one without sin cast the first stone and first take the beam out of your own eye.

Let's see. Haney wants to sue Boettger, that's okay. Haney does not want Boettger to counter sue her. That's not okay.

Perhaps Haney should be more concerned with God's jurisdiction over her?

Perhaps everyone should be concerned about God's jurisdiction over them?

No comments:

Post a Comment