Mark: Your TONE in addressing me has been consistently negative and rude. If you will take your bony ass elsewhere, you won't need to worry about my not replying to a likely socialist-communist like you! — J. A. A. —
On Mar 14, 7:03 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, no, SPAM is NOT friendlier. > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Mark: Rots of ruck! Take your one-page "constitution" and shove it! > > There now; isn't SPAM a lot friendlier? — NE — > > > On Mar 13, 12:12 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Einstein, > > > > You have no "RIGHT" to continuously SPAM the board with this "Canned" > > > response. This is your last warning.... next time you will go to > > > moderation. > > > > How is that for communist/socialist/party crashing you ignorant putz. > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:40 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Mark, the manner-less party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J. > > > > A. A. — > > > > > On Mar 11, 10:34 am, Mark <[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] > > > > >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]> > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
