> > 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.
> > 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,
> > 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.
> > 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
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
-- > > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first
> > year and passed by less than 60% of the House.
> > year and passed by less than 60% of the House.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:56 AM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> 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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> It is so sad that you spent 14 years writing this incoherent statist> > Section 1, 2& 3: States shall recognize other states� public acts,
> 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:
>
> > records and judicial proceedings, and shall pass no laws much more> > that: aren�t common knowledge; disagree with the macro moral consensus
> > 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
> > of the People and this constitution; or are in the probationary first> > such crime. No imprison-ment, slavery, nor involuntary servitude�
> > 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
> > 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> > � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> > 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."
> >> make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution�never on>
> > On Mar 6, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> 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
> >> their personal ideologies. Every two years an unbiased review panel> >> nationwide, the latter can be unseated. Judges and justices aren�t
> >> shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
> >> seated judges and justices. With the assent of 60% of the voters
> >> royalty, nor do they have an implied moral judgment inherently> >> begin with the judge(s) or justice(s) saying: �The justice system is
> >> 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
> >> 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> >> within any arm of government�including the entire judicial system�
> >> 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
> >> judges and justices shall not, during a trial or during sentencing,> >> be held regarding all named parties�with judgment being determined via
> >> 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
> >> referendum. Whenever 60% of the registered voters who vote determine> >> law and to fact�with such exceptions and under such regulations as the
> >> 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
> >> 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.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
Fila Coffee
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment