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 <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, no, SPAM is NOT friendlier.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:38 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>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 <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <noeinst...@bellsouth.net
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Mark, the manner-less party crasher, is undeserving of a reply. — J.
> > > > A. A. —
>
> > > > On Mar 11, 10:34 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> 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 <
> > noeinst...@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
> > > > > > > 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<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
> > > > > > > >> 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment