Jonathan, a socialist-communist masquerading as a conservative, is
undeserving of being replied to.  — J. A. A. —
>
On Mar 10, 9:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist
> hodge-podge.
>
> On 03/10/2011 06:25 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Folks:  About 1/3rd of my New Constitution relates to straightening-
> > out the Judiciary.  Here, in sequence, is...
>
> > " Article IV:
>
> > Section 1, 2&  3:  States shall recognize other states� public acts,
> > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more
> > strict on common issues than are in effect in the majority of the
> > states having laws governing such.  English, that is grammatically
> > written and correctly spoken, is the official language of the USA and
> > shall be the model for every medium and every public discourse.  Laws,
> > documents, contracts, instructions and forms shall be written
> > concisely, without legalese, and shall be understandable by average
> > people, or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed.
> > Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages
> > in civil court.  No person shall be punished for violations of laws
> > that: aren�t common knowledge; disagree with the macro moral consensus
> > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first
> > year and passed by less than 60% of the House.
> >       Citizens in any state are entitled to the same privileges and
> > immunities as the Citizens of the several states.  Anyone charged with
> > treason or other crime in any state who flees to another state, shall,
> > on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled,
> > be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction in
> > such crime.  No imprison-ment, slavery, nor involuntary servitude�
> > except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
> > duly convicted�shall exist within the United States or any place
> > subject to its jurisdiction.
> >       The House may create new states if such aren�t within the
> > jurisdiction of another state that dissents, and aren�t formed by
> > joining two or more dissenting states or parts thereof.  The House can
> > make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the
> > United States.  The New Constitution shall not prejudice claims of the
> > USA or a particular state, and shall guarantee to each state in the
> > union a government that is a democracy or a republic, and shall
> > protect states against invasion.  Upon request by the legislature or
> > the executive of a state (when the legislature cannot be convened),
> > the United States shall protect such state from domestic violence."
> > � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
>
> > On Mar 6, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >> Dear Keith in Koln:  I lived in Charlotte for over two decades.  My
> >> father, in his childhood, lived in Tarpon Springs.  One of my most
> >> frightening times was driving over the Tampa Bay bridge.  The
> >> "starting point" for me in rewriting the constitution was to correct
> >> the rampant injustices in our courts, and to allay our (You have to
> >> experience it to know it.) police state.  As happened with O. J., the
> >> police target who they want to convict whether they are guilty or
> >> not.  The police are especially unfair to Blacks.  I make it a felony
> >> for any prosecutor to be overly zealous to convict someone who is
> >> latter proved to be innocent.  At every turn, justice demands that the
> >> presumption of innocence be there throughout the trial until the jury
> >> has reached a unanimous decision for guilt.  Never again will there be
> >> the converse requirement for a unanimous decision of innocence...  ***
> >> Only one of twelve jury members is required to find someone not
> >> guilty.  The latter is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended!
>
> >> I'm flattered that someone with a Law background, like you, has said
> >> anything favorable about my essays or my daily battles with others.
> >> Here is the entire Article III relating to the Justice System:
>
> >> "Article III:
>
> >> Section 1:  The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
> >> such inferior courts as the House establishes.  Its major duty is to
> >> interpret laws.  It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
> >> rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
> >> laws.  Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
> >> Constitution.  They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
> >> as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
> >> from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
> >> such.  Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
> >> executive or legislative office.  The President shall nominate new
> >> justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
> >> good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years.  The President,
> >> or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
> >> nominee.   Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
> >> high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
> >> nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office.  Such
> >> shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
> >> yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly.  They shall
> >> make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution�never on
> >> their personal ideologies.  Every two years an unbiased review panel
> >> shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
> >> seated judges and justices.  With the assent of 60% of the voters
> >> nationwide, the latter can be unseated.  Judges and justices aren�t
> >> royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently
> >> superior to public macro-consensus.   They shall not be chambered
> >> lavishly, sit in throne-like chairs, wear robes on the job, nor dress
> >> in a style that differentiates them from the People.  They shall not
> >> socialize with, nor privately be in conference with, members of the
> >> Executive or Legislative branches of government; nor shall they attend
> >> State of the Union Addresses or similar events.  The Public shall not
> >> stand for entering or exiting judges or justices who shall be
> >> addressed only as: judge or justice.  Judges and justices not
> >> respecting such provisions, or who exhibit excessive arrogance or
> >> pomposity on the job shall be removed.  Sessions of all trials shall
> >> begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: �The justice system is
> >> on trial.�  All assent five-to-four Supreme Court decisions are for
> >> one year only, or shall be invalid; and the same nine justices shall
> >> not�on their own�reconsider such issue.  Courtrooms shall be devoid of
> >> gavels, seals, flags and oppressive art, and no design feature nor
> >> process shall imply that judges or justices represent government or
> >> respond patly or collectively.  It is TREASON for a judge or justice
> >> to rule with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy.
>
> >> Section 2&  3:  Judges and justices shall be answerable to the
> >> People.  On issues of internal criminality, misconduct or corruption
> >> within any arm of government�including the entire judicial system�
> >> judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing,
> >> favor government officials, judges, justices, nor any arm(s) of law
> >> enforcement, and shall hold government officials, fellow judges,
> >> justices, or members of law enforcement as accountable for wrongful
> >> acts as those outside of government.  If a judge or justice fails to
> >> respond to a rightful petition or complaint against any government
> >> official or member of the justice system, such judge or justice may be
> >> guilty of a felony.  The determination of the above status shall be
> >> made following a mandatory vote in the House.  Upon a yea vote of 1/3
> >> of the House, a national public trial, televised from the House, shall
> >> be held regarding all named parties�with judgment being determined via
> >> referendum.  Whenever 60% of the registered voters who vote determine
> >> that there is guilt, the government officials, judges, justices and/or
> >> members of law enforcement shall be removed from their former
> >> positions and sentenced commensurate with their crimes, up to and
> >> including the death penalty.
> >>       Judicial authority shall extend to all cases in law and equity
> >> arising under this New Constitution, the laws of the United States,
> >> treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, to all
> >> cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to
> >> all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies in
> >> which the United States is a party, to controversies between two or
> >> more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between
> >> Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state
> >> claiming lands under grants of different states or the Citizens
> >> thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects.  The Supreme Court
> >> shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors
> >> and consuls, and those in which a state is a party.  In all other
> >> cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate juris-diction both as to
> >> law and to fact�with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
> >> House shall make.  Except in cases of impeachment, the trial of all
> >> crimes shall be by jury in the state where said crimes were allegedly
> >> committed, or if otherwise, where the House directs.  Misdemeanors and
> >> crimes occurring conjunctively shall be tried with the more serious
> >> crime, unless the disproving of the misdemeanor would excuse the
> >> crime.   If either occurred in multiple jurisdictions, the trial shall
> >> be at a single common venue that is least compromising to the
> >> defense.  But capital murder cases may be tried consecutively.
>
> >> Section 4:  New trials shall be granted to anyone previously found
> >> guilty if there is substantive new evidence for innocence, or if there
> >> was an improper
>
> ...
>
> read more »

-- 
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.

Reply via email to