Dear J. A.: Lawyers are the majority of both houses of Congress; the majority of those in the WH; and the majority on the US Supreme Court. At least one Lawyer sits on the Board of Directors of most corporations. The latter are largely responsible for the adversarial relationship between businesses and their customers. If you are ever harmed by a business, such won't move to make amends. Rather they will stonewall and require that you hire an expensive lawyer, yourself, to take the issue to court. Lawyers write the laws... and make sure that they have their corrupt hands on everything that goes on in the USA. But no more!
"What do you call a 1,000 lawyers on a heavy chain at the bottom of the ocean?" Answer: "A good... 'start'!" Instead of complaining about lawyers, my New Constitution will forever put Lawyers in their rightful place: Out of the control of anything that happens in this country! To wit: "Obtaining a lawyer in civil cases is as fundamental to justice as obtaining a lawyer in criminal cases. No statute of limitation shall apply to any case in which a plaintiff or defendant diligently seeks but can’t find a lawyer. Upon request to the court, an unbiased lawyer shall be appointed. In federal cases licensed lawyers from any state or territory may be used regardless of where the trial takes place. The right of the People to obtain justice for any criminal or civil injury is fundamental. Justice departments, law enforcement agencies, and/or the courts shall be the instruments of justice. Should such in any way obstruct justice by improper procedure, bias, or intentional neglect of duty, such persons shall be held as criminally accountable as anyone else for obstruction of justice—a felony. Undue delay by a defendant or their counsel in a civil case— as a defensive tactic—is prohibited, and if present may be considered as evidence supporting guilt. Causing undue delay of appeals, similarly, is prohibited." And ... "Section 8: It’s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special interest—publicly or privately—to lobby judges or justices for influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor. It’s a capital offense for such to accept a bribe that directly results in a person’s death. It’s a felony to extort an innocent defendant into pleading guilty by threatening to try them for a greater crime; ipso facto, the greater crime is excused. Law enforcement and the courts shall be responsive rather than proactive, protective without being subjugative, and shall enforce the New Constitution ahead of any other laws or employment hierarchies. Racial or other statistical profiling, preemptive arrests, detention or sentencing are illegal if a person’s constitutional rights are violated. But in an emergency, the President—or when apt, a state governor(s)—may temporarily waive the latter. It’s a felony for an attorney to acquiesce to their client’s ongoing violations of this constitution, and/or their criminal conduct, without censure; or for any reason to conspire to violate, or violate, another person’s civil rights; or to stonewall the easy resolution of justified complaints by non action, legal shenanigans or personal bias. Similarly, it’s a civil offense for an individual, group or business to require that a justified plaintiff have an attorney before moving to make agreeable amends. States shall license no attorney on the payroll or board of another type business, organization or non-judicial governmental agency; nor one who violates this constitution; nor one who because of personal bias, fails to competently defend the civil rights of any Citizen. Incorporation doesn’t protect those in such from personal responsibility for maliciousness in: harming any person; irremediably harming local or world environs; or endangering the likely health and safety of local or world Citizens. A crime’s seriousness shall be consistent with the mores of the People and the apt juries rather than with government. Judges & justices shall be well mannered, forthright and succinct; courtrooms aren’t their property nor forums for venting their feelings. A Citizen can sanction a judge or justice in court for deviating from this constitution or its spirit. Rightful behavior by any law abiding Citizen is appropriate, implicitly, and no Citizen so acting shall be subordinate in or to any court, nor be made to defer to overly drawn-out legal processes or pending rulings." And ... " In criminal cases the accused shall: get a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime was committed; be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; be confronted with witnesses against him; have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and have competent defense counsel. If counsel makes no defense, or makes an obviously inferior or incompetent defense—as by a court-appointed attorney—the judge shall order a new trial with a new attorney. An accused person is presumed innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases involving primarily circumstantial evidence, the mere existence of a means, opportunity and possible motive to commit a crime isn’t sufficient evidence, alone, to establish guilt. The unmodified word “motive” misused in the past, has implied that the accused person acted toward some desired aim. It is unlawful to claim that a defendant has a “motive” or to use an accusatory tone or synonym that requires a prior knowledge of guilt not yet proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. “Possible motive” or “could be a motive” or similar conditional modification shall be used instead. Juries shall be informed that eye-witness testimony is only marginally reliable in placing a suspect at a crime scene. Except in syndicated crimes, no witness shall be obtained by bargaining. The bravado of the prosecution or defense isn’t evidence, nor is a defendant’s emotions or lack thereof. It’s better that several guilty persons go free than to imprison an innocent person—who could be any one of us at any time." And ... "Diverse backgrounds of representatives in the House are desirable for fair government. Therefore, if any profession shall be present in numbers exceeding 20% of the total of all representatives, in the next election of representatives, those candidates from such profession shall be required to win by a margin of at least 5% of the final total vote in that district. Should the next term’s number of representatives from such profession still exceed 20%, the margin required to win shall be raised to 10%, and etc., until the proportion from such profession is 20% or less. Such margin reverts, in steps, at 20% or less. After three elections, any profession still constituting more than 20% of the House shall never again be taught as a major at any public institution, and thereafter, no public financing shall be allowed toward such major at any private institution." I hope you agree how much less adversarial the country will be with lawyers put in their place. — John A. Armistead — Patriot > On Feb 15, 11:26 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > It appears to me that "NoEinstein" has squat. > > On 2/14/2011 9:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par > > with > > your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered > > for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things > > when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I > > must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval > > of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the > > ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot > > On Feb 14, 1:29 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >> So you are going to ENDLESSLY spew fallacy? > >> Why not simply posit your Constitution instead so it can be discussed and > >> we might get somewhere? > >> Regard$, > >> --MJIt is amazing how many people think that they can > >> answer an argument by attributing bad motives to > >> those who disagree with them. Using this kind of > >> reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything > >> about anything, without having to bother to deal > >> with facts or logic. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:20 PM 2/14/2011, you wrote:On > >> Feb 14, 10:09 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par with > >> your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered > >> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things > >> when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I > >> must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval > >> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the > >> ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> Why you imagine spewing fallacy aids your cause is unknown. > >>> I can certainly understand WHY you would prefer NOT to support (or > >>> attempt to) your efforts or claims. > >>> Regard$, > >>> --MJA state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive > >>> minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the > >>> multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret > >>> the loss of their pleasing vision. > >>> -- Edward Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_At 11:36 PM > >>> 2/13/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, > >>> aren't on a par with > >>> your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered > >>> for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things > >>> when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I > >>> must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval > >>> of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the > >>> ratification process. � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> On Feb 12, 9:35 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> MJ, you seem to be on-the-fence whether you concur with what I'm > >>>> doing. I invite your more specific comments, because time does not > >>>> allow me to be as wordy in future replies. Your "$" salutation amuses > >>>> I would need to see the TEXT of this Constitution in order to > >>>> discuss it. I erroneously believed we were discussing the US > >>>> Constitution ... and then you wanted to instead argue about something > >>>> I STILL have not seen -- as though I instead had. > >>>> Post the text already. > >>>> I will provide the text of something that appears quite workable. > >>>> Regard$, > >>>> --MJThe fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is > >>>> no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong > >>>> probability that yours is a fake. -- H.L. Mencken > >>> -- > >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > >> -- > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges > and lawyers <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> yourself! -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
