Prosperity" is available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Its
objective was to show that this country can be saved WITHOUT needing
to reform government. Read the book and see where the motive for
writing my New Constitution came from. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 13, 3:26 pm, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> 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 <
>
> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> 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 <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > 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<markmka...@gmail.com> <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> <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> <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> <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
>
> ...
>
> 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