Guaranteed to put you to sleep within half a page.
On 03/13/2011 03:26 PM, Keith In Köln wrote:
Hey Jonathan!
Send the link! I might opt to buy it....I am looking for some reading
material, on some upcoming (long assed) flights that I see I will be
enduring here soon.....
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Has anyone besides Mark and myself noticed that John (a.k.a.
NoEinstein) never answers a single question posed to him? When all
he can do is cut and paste "the socialist-communist, is
undeserving of a reply," does he actually think anyone will buy
HIS New Book?
(HIS New Book is not the title of his new book. That's just me
poking fun at John.)
HIS New Book was published by Outskirts Press (a business that
helps folks self-publish) in September 2010. It is available
through Amazon.com. However, I was not enticed into making a
purchase simply because "There are no customer reviews yet." So, I
went to the Barnes & Noble website, which allows folks to rate
books on a scale of 1 to 5. It has no ratings for the book.
One would think that a book that has been out close to six months
would have had at least one person post a review - even if it were
a negative review.
I hope John didn't purchase too many copies of HIS New Book!
On 03/13/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply.
— J. A. A. —
On Mar 11, 5:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
Re: "Unless one understands the hundreds of problems solved, most don't
have the smarts to realize how much more personal liberty and how much
less government control there will be that would otherwise have affected
most Americans."
John,
Perhaps a definition of liberty is needed for your perusal. From
Webster's 1828 dictionary:
*LIB''ERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the
body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not
confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or
controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to
restrain his actions or volitions.
How does one gain liberty from YOUR New Constitution? From what little
you have provided, for every problem YOUR New Constitution claims to
solve, YOUR New Constitution creates ten new problems.
On 03/11/2011 12:46 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Mark: Your pet one-page constitution was unknown to me when I
wrote my New Constitution�which is based on and expanded from, the
original. So, don't fault me for not following your lead. At no time
is the input of any outsider, like you, being sought to... "evaluate"
what I have done. Most of the content was for solving very specific
governmental problems highlighted in the news. Unless one understands
the hundreds of problems solved, most don't have the smarts to realize
how much more personal liberty and how much less government control
there will be that would otherwise have affected most Americans. Even
YOU will be a beneficiary! � J. A. Armistead �
On Mar 11, 9:34 am, Mark<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
THERE GOES MY STATES RIGHT TO THE DEATH PENALTY AND LIFE IN PRISON FOR
REPEAT OFFENDER PEDOPHILES...
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,
JUST WHAT IS "AVERAGE"... DEFINE "LEGALESE".... DOES THAT MEAN (IT CERTAINLY
IMPLIES) THAT ANY "OFFICIAL" LANGUAGE MUST BE IN A FORM THAT WOULD ALLOW
IDIOTS AND DROPOUTS TO UNDERSTAND..(EBONICS).. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT ANYONE
WITH AN EDUCATION COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
or no person shall be bound thereby, even if endorsed.
Persons harmed by confusing language or verbiage may sue for damages
in civil court.
EXPLAIN WHAT IS CONFUSING ABOUT A THOUSAND YEAR OLD LANGUAGE??
No person shall be punished for violations of laws
that: aren�t common knowledge;
SO IF I CLAIM THAT I DID NOT KNOW THAT KILLING UNCLE JOE WAS "ILLEGAL" I
CAN'T BE PROSECUTED.
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.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:56 AM, NoEinstein<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>wrote:
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]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
wrote:
It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist
hodge-podge.
On03/10/2011 <tel:03%2F10%2F2011> 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]>
<mailto:[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
..
read more »
--
Q: What do you call 1,000 Republican politicians chained together
with 1,000 Democrat politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A: A
good start.
Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
--
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/
<http://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 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.
--
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.
